I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link. Over the last few weeks I have posted portions of Dr. Hospers’ letter and portions of the cassette tape that he listened to back in 1994, but today I want to look at some other comments made on that cassette tape that John Hospers listened to and I will also post a few comments that Dr. Hospers made in that 2 page letter.
John Hospers on ‘Pure’ versus ‘Impure’ Libertarianism
John Hospers was professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Southern California. He was also the first Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1972.
In this lecture given at a California Libertarian Party conference in 1989, Hospers describes the differences between what he calls ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ libertarianism. He illustrates differences of opinion between the two in three situations: consent, privacy, and endangerment/risk.
Download the .mp3 version of this lecture here: http://bit.ly/OF4kB8
JOHN HOSPERS ran for President of the United States in 1972 on the Libertarian Party ticket. He actually received one vote from the Electoral College. Mr. Hospers is the author of books on esthetics, ethics, and politics. He was an intimate intellectual colleague of revolutionary thinker Ayn Rand from 1961 to 1963. John Hospers died in June 2011 at age 93. This may be his final interview.Liberal Institute: What made you decide to become a philosopher in the first place?
John Hospers: I was always going to become an astronomer. From early childhood I did lots of sky-watching, identifying many stars and constellations. Then as a college freshman I took over the senior astronomy class taught by the dean, which was my first semester of actual teaching experience. And who knows what would have happened had it not been for my cousin in the same Iowa town who was about to get his university degree in literature, which I also had as an undergraduate major. So I got my Masters in English at the University of Iowa, then a scholarship to Columbia University in which at my own request I asked for a change of major to my first love, philosophy. And so I got my Ph.D. in philosophy.
I was brought up pretty much in the free market tradition: government was seen as an interferer and nuisance, not benefactor. When Roosevelt won the l932 election my uncle said: “We’ll never see freedom again.” So when I met Ayn Rand when she lectured in New York in l960 her ideas were never entirely unfamiliar to me, but fleshed out and systematized in a way I had never done. I was not an addict of metaphysics as she was, but epistemology was my forte. And aesthetics was also my specialty in philosophy, and it was in aesthetics that I did my dissertation, which became published as the book Meaning and Truth in the Arts.
I have described in some detail my conversations with Ayn Rand in my l990 article in Liberty in Context, such as why we got along so well, i.e. as long as I was the inquirer, the student, and not the lecturer. But nevertheless the relationship was very satisfying to me, as I explained in the articles.
LI: How did Ayn Rand change your life personally and intellectually?
Hospers: Did she change my life? Yes, she drummed into me the need for total intellectual honesty, and intolerance for those who were not really serious about philosophic concepts but were good at name-dropping.
LI: How much has philosophy in general, and Objectivism in particular, made you a better and happier person?
Hospers: Am I a happier person as a result of knowing her? Yes, but not always. In our final meeting, a speech she gave to the Aesthetics Society in Boston, she insulted me and was openly angry, and never spoke to me again after that. (Other people have suffered the same fate.) This incident was not exactly happiness-producing.
LI: What are the main things today’s Objectivist movement is doing wrong?
Hospers: I’d have to discuss Objectivism point by point.
LI: What are the main things the libertarian movement in general, and the US Libertarian Party in particular, are doing wrong?
But on the Libertarian Party, I think many libertarians have gone amiss. I am not an anarchist. When you have a ball game there has to be an umpire, and one strong enough to defend its values if necessary. And much of what libertarians discuss in meetings is endlessly repetitious. I think my book Libertarianism  has already discussed most of what is needed. (See my article in Liberty magazine in 2007 about the original organization of the Party and why we did with it what we did.)
LI: How would you evaluate the relative merits and value of The Objectivist Center vs. The Ayn Rand Institute?
Hospers: I cannot evaluate the merits of The Ayn Rand Institute.
LI: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of Ayn Rand personally?
Hospers: Ayn herself had many strengths: TOTAL HONESTY REGARDLESS OF HOW PEOPLE FELT ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID. She was also quick to anger, and took any disagreement as a personal offense. That is why she began with many friends but alienated almost all of them in the end (except the one who inherited her estate).
LI: How would you compare Ayn Rand and Aristotle as philosophers?
Hospers: Aristotle was the greatest philosopher (along with Hume), though not in all matters, such as the doctrine of the Prime Mover. (Rand didn’t believe in the Prime Mover either.)
LI: What do you consider to be your philosophic legacy — and what do you most want to be remembered for?
John Hospers: I am most known as a writer of philosophy, in such books as Introduction to Philosophical Analysis  and Human Conduct . But I always wanted to be remembered as a really good (great?) teacher. Universities, however, consider only a teacher’s scholarly works and not his/her teaching ability. And they don’t consider it at all when promotion time comes.
I want to be remembered as a philosophical instructor who could clarify questions, and present good ideas clearly, avoiding vagueness and confusion in the presentation of ideas. That is probably my main legacy as a teacher. And many of my students have come to remember me in just this way.
After listening to the below audio message from Adrian Rogers on Evolution Dr. John Hospers commented in his June 2, 1994 letter:
EVOLUTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A FACT. Yes indeed, the evidence is quite overwhelming. If you don’t see how it could have happened or how life could develop from non-life, read e.g. Richard Dawkins’ books such as THE SELFISH GENE. A wonderfully lucid account.
During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know the Bible is True,” “The Final Judgement,” “Who is Jesus?” and the message by Bill Elliff, “How to get a pure heart.” I would also send them printed material from the works of Francis Schaeffer and a personal apologetic letter from me addressing some of the issues in their work. My second cassette tape that I sent to both Antony Flew and George Wald was Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution and here below you can watch that very sermon on You Tube. Carl Sagan also took time to correspond with me about a year before he died.
(Francis Schaeffer pictured below)
Adrian Rogers pictured below
I have posted on Adrian Rogers’ messages on Evolution before but here is a complete message on it.
Evolution: Fact of Fiction? By Adrian Rogers
c. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The third bridge that the evolutionist cannot logically cross is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? This law says that energy is never destroyed. Everything tends to wear out, to run down, to disintegrate, and, ultimately, to die, but energy just moves to some other form. All processes, by definition, involve change, but the change—now, listen very carefully—is not in the upward direction of complexity, as the evolutionist declares. But, change left to itself is always in disintegration, not in integration. Now, that’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It’s called…—to itself, everything collapses, deteriorates, grows old, and dies, sooner or later—it’s called entropy.
Well, why would that be? Well, I preached on that, this morning. We have a creation that is under judgment. And, because it’s under judgment, it involves decay and death. Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” Left to themselves, things do not organize; they disorganize. They collapse; they deteriorate. They grow old; they die. They wear out. You can have a beautiful garden. Leave it alone—what happens to it? Leave your body alone; don’t exercise. Don’t take care of it, and see what will happen to it. Take a brand new automobile; park it in the woods. Go off, and come back in a few years; and, see what has happened to it. Or, even a boy’s bedroom—leave it alone; see what is going to happen to it.
Now, the evolutionist says, given enough time, these molecules are going to organize themselves; they’re going to synthesize themselves. The parts are going to come together from simplicity to intricacy.
Well, if you would take the parts of a new automobile, and fly at the height of 10,000 feet, and dump them out, would they assemble themselves into an automobile, before they hit the ground? Suppose I drop the disassembled parts of a car from an airplane at 10,000 feet. Would they assemble themselves before they hit the ground? “Well,” you say, “of course not. They’d be just spread out all over.” Well, the evolutionist would say, “Well, you just don’t have enough time.” Okay, rather than 10,000 feet, let’s take it up to 100,000 feet. Now, is it going to be more organized or less organized?
You see, the more that time goes on, the more disintegration you have. Everything we see disintegrates, not integrates, when left alone by itself. That is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
d. The Non-Physical Properties Found in Creation
Now, here’s the fourth bridge that the evolutionists cannot logically cross, and that is the non-physical properties found in creation. Now, what do I mean by the non-physical properties found in creation? Music, Brother Ken—the love of music, art, beauty, a hunger for God, worship. What is there in the survival of the fittest—what is there in the evolutionary process—that would produce these things? How can they be accounted for under the survival of the fittest? Where do these things come from? Genesis 1, verse 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26). You see, we have these inner things—this love for beauty, for art, for truth, for eternity. That didn’t come from some primordial ooze; that came from the God who created us.
Now, I’ve mentioned all of this under one heading. It’s the first of three reasons; all of this is the first of three reasons. I reject evolution for logical reasons. There are four bridges that the evolutionists cannot cross, has not crossed, will not cross.
(Charles Darwin as a young man)
B. Moral Reasons
I reject evolution for moral reasons—for moral reasons. Now, there were two atheists, who lived in the time of Darwin, who believed Darwin’s teaching and locked onto it. One was a man named Nietzsche, and the other was a man named Karl Marx. From Nietzsche we got Nazism. Hitler was a student of Nietzsche, who was a student of Charles Darwin. The other was Karl Marx. Karl Marx was the father of Communism—also a student of Darwin. And, you see, it’s easy to understand, if there is no God, how something like Communism, which is based on Godlessness, and Nazism, which is based on raw brutality, could come. People talk about all those who’ve died in religious wars—and many have, and that’s tragic. But, I want to say that far more—multiplied many more; millions, and millions, and multiplied millions—have died—not because of religion, but because of anti-godly evolution.
You think of those who were destroyed by Nazi Germany. Think of the gas camps. Think of the multiplied millions that were put to death under Stalin and the others, the atrocity of Communism. Well, why that? Why these immoral things? Well, if you believe that you came from animals, if you believe that everything is an accident, ultimately, there can be no standard of right or wrong. You teach people that they’ve come from animals; and, after a while, they’ll begin to live like animals. It follows as night follows day. What do animals live for? Self-gratification, self-preservation, self-propagation. And, that’s what the average American is living for. But, the Bible teaches that man did not spring from the beast; he is headed toward the Beast—that is, the Antichrist.
Friedrich Nietzsche pictured below
Karl Marx pictured below
Hitler pictured below
Results of Hitler’s plan
Peter Singer, who is an ethicist—so-called—at Princeton, believes that we ought to be able to kill little babies, if we don’t like them, if they’re not perfect enough for us. Now, I’m not talking about babies in the womb; I’m talking about pure infanticide. He believes that a live chimpanzee is of more value, if that chimpanzee is healthy, than an unhealthy baby.
I was in Israel, I was a guest, there, of the Israeli government. They gave me the best guide that they had in Israel. And, that man in Israel—I’ll not call his name, because, thank God, I believe he listens to this program; and, I’m grateful he does, because I’m still trying to witness to him—but this man—a brilliant man, the curator of the Rockefeller Museum there—became a friend. We sat up, one night, late, talking. I said, “Sir, do you believe in God?” He said, “No, I do not.” I said, “Why don’t you believe—why don’t you believe—in God?” He said, “The Holocaust. What kind of a God would allow that to happen?” That deals with the message I preached this morning.
Because of the Holocaust. I said, “Then Hitler has caused you not to believe in God?” He said, “Yes, I detest Hitler.” I said, “Well, you’re on the same side as Hitler. Hitler didn’t believe in God, as such; you don’t believe in God. Hitler believed in evolution; you believe in evolution. Evolution is the survival of the fittest; you believe in the survival of the fittest. And, Hitler had his gas ovens, because he thought that the Aryan race was superior to your people, sir. You’ve become very much like the thing that you fight.” It’s only a short step from believing in evolution to the gas ovens, or whatever.
You see, folks, if there is no God, you can choose what you want. I said to this man, “Sir, if you don’t believe in God, then let me give you a proposition: If there’s a sick baby and a healthy dog, which one would you choose?” In a moment of honesty, he said, “If it were my dog, I would choose the dog.” Let the baby die; let the dog live—why? There’s no God, no creation. Man is not distinct from the animals. All we are is an animal with a thumb juxtaposed to five fingers, with a knee that causes him to stand upright, with the ability to articulate and to think abstractly. If that’s all the difference there is, I submit to you, the man was right. And, who can say what is right, or who can say what is wrong?
Therefore, I reject—I reject—evolution on the moral basis. And, I want to tell you, folks, the battle lines are being drawn today. Over what? Euthanasia. Over what? Genetic engineering. Over what? Abortion. Over what? A basic sense of right or wrong. Now, if evolution is true, then all of these things are up for grabs. We have morality by majority—whatever a person wishes to believe or think. Self-autonomous man wants to have it his way.
C. Theological Reasons
Now, here’s the third and final reason: I reject evolution not only for logical reasons, and not only for moral reasons, but I reject evolution for theological reasons. Now, this may not apply to others, but friend, it applies to me, because the Bible doesn’t teach it, and I believe the Bible. And, you cannot have it both ways. There are some people who say, “Well, I believe the Bible, and I believe in evolution.” Well, you can try that if you want, but you have pudding between your ears. You can’t have it both ways.
H. G. Wells, the brilliant historian who wrote The Outlines of History, said this—and I quote: “If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, and no Paradise, and no Fall. If there had been no Fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement, collapses like a house of cards.” H. G. Wells says—and, by the way, I don’t believe that he did believe in creation—but he said, “If there’s no creation, then you’ve ripped away the foundation of Christianity.”
Now, the Bible teaches that man was created by God and that he fell into sin. The evolutionist believes that he started in some primordial soup and has been coming up and up. And, these two ideas are diametrically opposed. What we call sin the evolutionist would just call a stumble up. And so, the evolutionist believes that all a man needs—he’s just going up and up, and better and better—he needs a boost from beneath. The Bible teaches he’s a sinner and needs a birth from above. And, these are both at heads, in collision.
Now, remember that evolution is not a science. It may look like a science; it may talk like a science, but it is a philosophy; it is science fiction. It is anti-God; it is really the devil’s religion. And, the sad thing is that our public schools have become the devil’s Sunday School classes.
What is evolution? Evolution is man’s way of hiding from God, because, if there’s no creation, there is no Creator. And, if you remove God from the equation, then sinful man has his biggest problem removed—and that is responsibility to a holy God. And, once you remove God from the equation, then man can think what he wants to think, do what he wants to do, be what he wants to be, and no holds barred, and he has no fear of future judgment.
Aldous Huxley admitted this in his book—and I’m almost finished, but listen to this; it’s very revealing—Aldous Huxley said in his book Ends and Means—I quote: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. For myself, and no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claim that, in some way, they embodied meaning—a Christian meaning, they insisted—of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.” Aldous Huxley: “We didn’t want anybody to tell us that our sexual ways and perversions were sin, so what we did—we just simply told God, ‘God, get out of the way.’”
But, as surely as I stand in this place, there is a God. He created us. And, God will bring every work in judgment, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
President Bush with Adrian Rogers at Prayer Breakfast
Those are the reasons I reject evolution: for logical reasons, for moral reasons, and for theological reasons.
Now, Darwin wrote about the destiny of the species. Man wants to know from whence he came. A bigger question than that is, “Where is he going?” Friend, where you came from is a settled thing—that’s over; it’s done. Where you’re going is not yet settled, if you don’t know Jesus. And, I want to tell you, friend, the wisest thing—the best thing you could ever do—would be to be concerned not with the origin, but the destiny, of the species, and, primarily, with your own personal destiny.
May I ask you a question? Are you saved? I didn’t ask if you were Baptist, or Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever. Are you saved? I didn’t ask if you were moral or nice. Are you saved? I didn’t ask, “Do you know the plan of salvation?” I said, “Are you saved?” I didn’t ask, “Do you believe the plan of salvation?” I asked, “Are you saved?” You’re not saved by the plan of salvation—or even believing in it. You’re saved by Jesus Christ—and trusting in Him. Do you know Him? Do you know Him personally? Have you taken yourself off the throne and enthroned the Lord Jesus? Have you received Him as your Lord and Master, and have you yielded your life to Him? If not, I want to ask you to do that tonight, because I want to say again, from whence you came is already settled—that’s your origin. But, your destiny, right now, is in your hands.
May I lead you in a prayer? Would you pray this prayer? “Dear God, I’m a sinner; I’m lost. I need to be saved, and I want to be saved. Thank You for sending Your Son, the Lord Jesus, to pay my sin debt with His blood on the cross. Thank You, Jesus, for dying for me in agony and blood. Thank You for taking the Hell that I deserved. Thank You for being my substitute. Now, Lord Jesus, I want to invite You to come into my heart, into my life, and I want to turn my life over to You. I want You to be my Lord and Master. Save me, Lord Jesus. Jesus, You taught that salvation is a gift, so I just want to reach out my hand of faith and receive it now. Come into my life. Forgive my sin. Cleanse me. Save me, Jesus. Thank You for doing it, Jesus. I don’t deserve it. I never can earn it. It is the gift of Your love and Your grace, and I receive it now. Thank You for saving me. Begin now to make me the person You want me to be, and help me never to be ashamed of You. In Your name I pray. Amen.”
George Bush with Adrian and Joyce Rogers at Union University
Carl Andre – ‘Works of Art Don’t Mean Anything’ | TateShots
In this interview filmed at the artist’s New York apartment, Carl Andre discusses how materials are a natural part of his life, and looks back at when his work hit the headlines, recalling criticism such as ‘you can’t make art out of bricks’.
Since the 1960s Carl Andre has made work that emphasises the inherent qualities of his materials. After a period carving sculpture, he began arranging everyday materials in simple geometric configurations. Andre has described his method as scavenging for ‘physical realities’ and he has often sought inspiration in the city streets.
Subscribe for weekly films: http://goo.gl/X1ZnEl
Equivalent I-VIII (1966)
Andre frequently works in series, producing an entire exhibition of sculptures from different arrangements of the same material, as he did for his influential exhibition at the Tibor de Nagy Gallery in New York in 1966. Here, each work consists of an equivalent number of white sand-lime bricks (120), although the eight stacks are all arranged according to a different rectangular formation. These eight sculptures are arguably the first sculptures that clearly demonstrate Andre’s definition of “sculpture as place.” By spreading out the bricks over the floor of the gallery, Andre wanted to generate a sense of extreme horizontality, reminiscent of the level of water. This led him to consider the layer of space between the sculptures to be just as substantial as the bricks themselves, and to emphasise this feature of the sculpture he coined the aphorism: “a thing is a hole in a thing it is not.” However, at the end of the exhibition this feature of the installation was lost, because each sculpture was sold individually. Perhaps for this reason Andre remade a version of this work in 1995 called Sand-Lime Instar, in which the entire installation is considered a single sculpture.
Sand-lime bricks – Different Museums and Private Collections
Featured artist is Carl Andre
|Born||September 16, 1935
|Education||Phillips Academy, Andover, MA|
Carl Andre (born September 16, 1935) is an American minimalist artist recognized for his ordered linear format and grid format sculptures. His sculptures range from large public artworks (such as Stone Field Sculpture, 1977 in Hartford, CT and Lament for the Children, 1976 in Long Island City, NY) to more intimate tile patterns arranged on the floor of an exhibition space (such as 144 Lead Square, 1969 or Twenty-fifth Steel Cardinal, 1974). In 1988, Andre was tried and acquitted in the death of his wife, artist Ana Mendieta.
Andre was born in Quincy, MA. He completed primary and secondary schooling in the Quincy public school system and studied art at Phillips Academy in Andover, MA from 1951 to 1953. While at Phillips Academy he became friends with Hollis Frampton who would later influence Andre’s radical approach to sculpture through their conversations about art and through introductions to other artists.
Andre served in the U.S. Army in North Carolina 1955–56 and moved to New York City in 1956. While in New York, Frampton introduced Andre to Constantin Brâncuși through whom Andre became re-acquainted with a former classmate from Phillips Academy, Frank Stella, in 1958. Andre shared studio space with Stella from 1958 through 1960.
Andre’s early work in wood may have been inspired by Brâncuși, but his conversations with Stella about space and form led him in a different direction. While sharing a studio with Stella, Andre developed a series of wooden “cut” sculptures (such as Radial Arm Saw cut sculpture, 1959, and Maple Spindle Exercise, 1959). Stella is noted as having said to Andre (regarding hunks of wood removed from Andre’s sculpture) “Carl, that’s sculpture, too.”
From 1960-64 Andre worked as freight brakeman and conductor in New Jersey for the Pennsylvania Railroad. The experience with blue collar labor and the ordered nature of conducting freight trains would have a later influence on Andre’s sculpture and artistic personality. For example, it was not uncommon for Andre to dress in overalls and a blue work shirt, even to the most formal occasions.”
During this period, Andre focused mainly on writing and there is little notable sculpture on record between 1960 and 1965. The poetry would resurface later, most notably in a book (finally published in 1980 by NYU press) called 12 Dialogues in which Andre and Frampton took turns responding to one another at a typewriter using mainly poetry and free-form essay-like texts. Andre’s concrete poetry has exhibited in the United States and Europe, a comprehensive collection of which is in the collection of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam.
Andre’s controversial “Lever” was included in the seminal 1966 show at the Jewish Museum in New York entitled Primary Structures.
In 1969 Andre helped organize the Art Workers Coalition.
In 1970 he had a solo exhibition at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, and has had solo exhibitions and participated in group shows in major museums, galleries, and kunsthalles throughout America and Europe.
In 1972, Britain’s Tate Gallery acquired Andre’s Equivalent VIII, an arrangement of fireplace bricks. The piece was exhibited several times without incident, but became the center of controversy in 1976 after being featured in an article in The Sunday Times and later being defaced with paint. The “Bricks controversy” became one of the most famous public debates in Britain about contemporary art.
The gradual evolution of consensus about the meaning of Carl Andre’s art can be found in About Carl Andre: Critical Texts Since 1965, published by Ridinghouse in 2008. The most significant essays and exhibition reviews have been collated into one volume, including texts written by some of the most influential art historians and critics: Clement Greenberg, Donald Kuspit, Lucy R. Lippard, Robert C. Morgan, Barbara Rose and Roberta Smith.
Ana Mendieta death
In 1979 Andre first met Ana Mendieta through a mutual friendship with artists Leon Golub and Nancy Spero at AIR Gallery in New York City. Andre and Mendieta eventually married in 1985, but the relationship ended in tragedy. Mendieta fell to her death from Andre’s 34th story apartment window in 1985 after an argument with Andre. There were no eyewitnesses. A doorman in the street below had heard a woman screaming “No, no, no, no,” before Mendieta’s body landed on the roof of a building below. Andre had what appeared to be fresh scratches on his nose and forearm, and his story to the police differed from his recorded statements to the 911 operator an hour or so earlier. The police arrested him.
Quincy, 1973. Artist book by Carl Andre which features commissioned photographs of landscapes and monuments in his hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts. Quincy was originally printed in conjunction with Andre’s 1973 solo show at Addison Gallery. Reprinted by Primary Information in 2014.
America Drill, 2003, Les Maîtres de Forme Contemporains, mfc-michèle didier and Paula Cooper Gallery. Limited edition of 100 numbered, signed and stamped copies, 400 numbered copies and 100 artist’s proofs.
- About Carl Andre: Critical Texts Since 1965, 2008, published by Ridinghouse .
- Busch, Julia M. (1974). A Decade of Sculpture: the New Media in the 1960s. London: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0-87982-007-1. External link in
- Christel Sauer: Carl Andre: Cuts, DE/EN,Basel 2011, ISBN 978-3-905777-10-9
- Rider, Alistair. Carl Andre: Things in their Elements. London: Phaidon Press, 2011.
- Hartford Advocate 11/13/1997 “Twenty Years After Stone Field Sculpture shook the Insurance City, Carl Andre Returns” by Patricia Rosoff
- “Art Galleries on artnet”.
- “144 Lead Square”.
- Naked by the Window, by Robert Katz published 1990 by The Atlantic Monthly Free Press ISBN 0-87113-354-7
- 12 Dialogues, Carl Andre and Hollis Frampton 1962-1963 published by Nova Scotia College of Art and Design Press and New York University Press, edited by Benjamin HD Buchloh ISBN 0-8147-0579-0
- Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties, edited by James Meyer, published 2004 by Yale University Press ISBN 0-300-10590-8, ISBN 978-0-300-10590-2
- Naked by the Window, by Robert Katz, published 1990 by The Atlantic Monthly Free Press ISBN 0-87113-354-7
- “CARL ANDRE”.
- “Oral history interview with Carl Andre, 1972 Sept”. Research collections. Archives of American Art. 2011. Retrieved 17 Jun 2011.
- John Walker. (1999). “Carl Andre’s ‘pile of bricks’- Tate Gallery acquisition controversy – 1976”. Art & outrage/artdesigncafe. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
- “[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Archive Journeys: Tate History – People, The Public – Tate”.[permanent dead link]
- Patrick, Vincent (June 10, 1990). “A Death In The Art World”. The New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2013.
- Sullivan, Ronald (February 12, 1988). “Greenwich Village Sculptor Acquitted of Pushing Wife to Her Death”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
- “mfc-michèle didier – Home”.
|Wikiquote has quotations related to: Carl Andre|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Carl Andre.|
- Official Website
- Carl Andre exhibition at Paula Cooper Gallery, NYC 2014
- Retrospective Gets a Master’s Touch Carl Andre Emerges to Guide Installation at Dia:Beacon NEW YORK TIMES by Randy Kennedy
- Carl Andre Dia Retrospective
- Carl Andre – Biography and Analysis from the Art Story Foundation website
- Short biography from the Guggenheim Museum
- Carl Andre at Ace Gallery
- Carl Andre interviewed on PORT
- Carl Andre Work & Extended Biography Timeline of Exhibitions 1964–Present
- Yvon Lambert, agent.
- Carl Andre at the Tate Modern
- Brooklyn Rail In Conversation: Carl Andre with Michèle Gerber Klein and Phong Bui
“My art springs from my desire to have things in the world which would otherwise never be there.”
CARL ANDRE SYNOPSIS
During the 1960s and 1970s, Carl Andre produced a number of sculptures which are now counted among the most innovative of his generation. Along with figures such as, , , and , Andre played a central role in defining the nature of . His most significant contribution was to distance sculpture from processes of carving, modeling, or constructing, and to make works that simply involved sorting and placing. Before him, few had imagined that sculpture could consist of ordinary, factory-finished raw materials, arranged into straightforward configurations and set directly on the ground. In fact, during the 1960s and 1970s many of his low-lying, segmented works came to redefine for a new generation of artists the very nature of sculpture itself.
CARL ANDRE KEY IDEAS
MOST IMPORTANT ART
Cedar Piece (1959 (destroyed), remade 1964)
Andre recreated this sculpture for the exhibition “Nine Young Artists” at the Hudson River Museum in 1964, and it became the first work of his to be exhibited in public. It consists of equal lengths of standard lumber, into which he has cut simple woodworker’s joints so that the sculpture can be slotted together, and then detached for the purposes of portability. The initial version dates from 1959 when he was in close contact with Stella and was observing Stella complete his paintings using repeated, even brushstrokes. Cedar Piece can be understood as Andre’s early attempt to construct sculpture in a similar fashion, also by building up a form from identical units. Andre liked this approach because once he had established the initial premise, he did not have to make any further decisions about the formal composition of the sculpture. In fact, it could be argued that the sculpture composes itself, in that the shape of the St Andrews cross formed by the ends of the beams results from the regular positioning of the joints.
Cedar – Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel, Museum fur Gegenwartskunst, Switzerland
CARL ANDRE BIOGRAPHY
Andre has always credited his early upbringing in Quincy, Massachusetts, as having a formative influence on his art. The son of a marine architect of Swedish descent, he grew up in close proximity to the Quincy naval shipyards, which during the Second World War expanded rapidly (at their peak of productivity they employed 32,000 workers). He would later claim that one of his strongest childhood memories had been the sight of the “rusting acres of steel plates” which lay beside the yards “under the rain and sun.”
In 1951, at the age of 16, Andre was awarded a scholarship to attend Phillips Academy, the prestigious boarding school in Andover, Massachusetts. It was here, under the tutelage of the painters Maud and Patrick Morgan, that he received his only formal art training.
CARL ANDRE LEGACY
From the late 1960s onwards, Andre’s art became an important reference point for many subsequent artists both in North America and in Western Europe – largely because he was seen to have reduced sculpture to its essential state. While Andre himself saw this as the end-point of his art, many sculptors (including) took his insights as the starting-point for their own practice, and built up from the principles which Andre had laid down.
[Accesed 04 May 2015]
CARL ANDRE QUOTES
“Art is the exclusion of the unnecessary.”
“Settle for nothing less than concrete analysis of concrete situations leading to concrete actions.”
“My art will reflect not necessarily conscious politics but the unanalyzed politics of my life.”
“…art for art’s sake is ridiculous. Art is for the sake of one’s needs.”