Written by Mariah Brusatore

Conceptual art of the late 1960s and 1970s often included photography as artists began to investigate the medium as a way to critique, symbolize or explore reality. The movement asserts that “the idea itself, even if it is not made visual, is as much of art as any finished product,” as discussed by artist Sol LeWitt in his essay “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art” (1967)*. As a result, photography became a unique resource; it allowed for the exploration of the connection between conceptual ideologies and their resulting art objects in a reproducible, portable and accessible manner. By examining unusual subject matter and testing the boundaries of the art-making process, viewers were also encouraged to reconsider the conception of their own interpretations.

Douglas Huebler made use of conceptual photography as a method to investigate reality by testing the boundaries of knowledge and perception. He left behind a legacy of work which explored the relationship between ideas and the variables of chance, calling into question the status of the traditional art object and art-making process. He is quoted as saying, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more. I prefer, simply, to state the existence of things in terms of time and place.”** Huebler’s work often contained two separate elements: a photograph and a descriptive text that explained the underlying concept of the image. He made use of the camera as a tool to document, however, by integrating linguistic communication with pictorial representation Huebler also placed emphasis on the idea over the visual iteration. His oeuvre shows viewers innumerable of ways to represent the visible, demonstrating how an idea or directive phrase can be endlessly realized.

Huebler’s photographs are chance operations. They consume the spontaneous nature of reality through the inclusion of randomness and variability, containing the presence of the spur-of-the-moment. These investigations were mainly explored in two series that Huebler worked on throughout his career. Although approaching differing subject matter, both series embodied Huebler’s aesthetic and spoke to his philosophical exploration of visual representation. With the Duration Piece series, the artist explored a specific idea for each work pertaining to a certain location during a set timeframe, as exemplified in Duration Piece #5 (1969). To create the piece, the artist sought to document the locations of distinct bird calls in Central Park over the duration of ten minutes. Every time Huebler heard a different bird call, he would point his camera in the corresponding direction, photograph it and proceed to walk forward on that course until the next song was heard. At that point, he would orient himself and the camera and photograph the direction of the new noise. The final form of the work includes ten photographs of ambiguous aspects of the park and a written statement that describes the happening. In this work and akin to the rest of the series, the photographs serve as a clarification of an event within a specific time, place and location captured in situ. Huebler’s work opens up the creative process through the removal of a portion of artistic control by embracing chance and variability. The visual component of the work consequently becomes the precursor to the explored concept, a relationship which is also found in Huebler’s other series, Variable Piece.

While both series similarly incorporate text with photography, Variable Piece seeks to document the existence of every living human being rather than enacting a specific ideology. Huebler works collaboratively with the individuals in the photographs and uses the textual accompaniment to explain the specificities of the encounter, as seen in Variable Piece #43 (Brussels) (1974/97). Showing in rennie museum’s Summer 2016: Collected Works exhibition, the work contains four photographs of a group of smiling, gleeful, young boys. The images feature close-up shots of the neatly dressed, bright-eyed children; happiness gleams from their expressive appearances as their playful laughter is captured by the camera. They are familiarly and affectionately embracing one another, an act that mimics the intimately close shots of their faces.

Upon initial impressions of the photographs, the viewer may perceive the production of the images to be more deliberate than their spur-of-the-moment origins. Their composition and delightful subject matter look comparable to a movie still, potentially taken from an inspirational moment. The boys look comfortable in front of the camera as if to suggest the photographer is familiar with them. However, reading Huebler’s textual accompaniment reveals the underlying spontaneity and genuine gaiety of the piece. The text describes an unexpected encounter with the group of children as the artist was passing by. Even though they spoke a different language, the artist expresses how he understood the children wished to have their photographs taken. He thus responds to the “playful spirit of the boys” and pulls out his camera “simulating the ‘quick draw’ manner of the gunmen seen in Western movies…”. Complimenting the light-hearted nature of the photographs through his excitable explanation, Huebler encourages the viewer to imagine the warm, chance meeting; he inspires his audience to compare their initial perceptions of the photographs with the optimistically written narrative. As a result, it becomes clear to the viewer that there are multitudes of ways to not only create imagery but to comprehend it.

Photography has always existed as a means to record; however, by pairing photographs with a written statement, Huebler impacts viewer’s perceptions of his documentations. The linguistic assertion is unexpectedly different from the aesthetics of the photographs, resulting in the alteration of the interpretation of the images. The artist shows that perception is malleable and the specificities of location, time or place affect personal experience much like how they affect the outcome of Huebler’s photographs. Therefore, rather than make finite conclusions, the written statement and its resulting photographs pose infinite potentials. Enacting out the concept is boundless. The artist’s practice thus confronts his audience, encouraging them to consider the images through Huebler’s lens and evaluation of the familiar within the everyday.

*LeWitt, ‘Paragraphs on Conceptual Art’. Artforum Vol.5: no.10, Summer 1967. pg. 79-83.
**Smith, ‘Douglas Huebler, 72, Conceptual Artist’. New York Times: U.S. online edition, July 17,1997.