(1) This fact was noted almost immediately by one of conceptual art's greatest supporters, Lucy Lippard. In the post-face to her Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972...   (New York: Praeger, 1973), p. 263

(2) Hal Foster has recently dealt with this question in his "What's Neo about the Neo-Avant-Garde?"   October 70 (Fall 1994): 532.

(3)To the same extent, but in a negative manner, such concerns were crucial for site-specificity as well, which at the moment of its initial emergence was often concerned with the utter refusal of a distribution form, in order to contest the commodity status of the work of art. Such hopes, again, were short-lived and, in the end, proved naive; in this essay, I will pay more attention to those practices that embraced their own commodity status in order to be better able to critique it. The result in recent years has been the emergence of projects that are concerned both with distribution formats and site-specificity at one and the same time, in a sense overcoming this former dialectical opposition. Certain early installations by Daniel Buren, however, already achieved this sublation by the late 1960s (for example when he would combine museum installations of his striped fabric with postering projects emblazoning his stripes on public billboards, and mailings of striped cards to portions of the Parisian public).

(4) For Buchloh's remark, see his "Conceptual Art, 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Admini-stration to the Critique of Institutions," October 55  (Winter 1990): 120. In this essay, Buchloh succinctly defines conceptual art as the "most consequential assault" on the status of the avant-garde object, an assault on "its visuality, its commodity status, and its form of distribution (p. 107)."

(5) This position seems to be confirmed in a recent exchange between Hans Haacke and Pierre Bourdieu, where the two discuss the necessity of reaching new audiences within the competency of the avant-garde legacy: "[Hans Haacke:] If one pays attention to the forms and the language that are accessible to an uninitiated public, one can discover things that could enrich the esoteric repertoire. [Pierre Bourdieu:] Therefore, contrary to what is said, the intention of reaching a broad public, far from leading in all cases to concessions or aesthetic compromises, to lowering the level, may well be a source of aesthetic discoveries." See Bourdieu and Haacke, Free Exchange  (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), p. 107.

(6) For Crow's account, see his "Unwritten Histories of Conceptual Art," Oehlen Williams 95  (Columbus, Ohio: Wexner Center for the Arts, 1995); for Buchloh, see "Conceptual Art, 1962-1969." Crow consistently claims that Buchloh has asserted the definitive closure of conceptual artistic practice; Buchloh, however, has always been clear on the fact that such closure was only temporarily achieved (with the rise of Neo-Expressionist painting), and he has in fact repeatedly set himself the task of isolating those practices that reinvestigate the possibility of historical commemoration within the post-Con-ceptual work of art. This work continues today, but two of the earliest consolidations of this position in Buchloh's work are "Moments of History in the Work of Dan Graham [1977]," translated in Walker Evans and Dan Graham (Rotterdam: Witte de With, 1992) and "Formalism and Historicity: Changing Concepts in American and European Art since 1945," in Anne Rorimer, ed., Europe in the Seventies , (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1977).

(7) See note 1.

(8) The politicization of the idioms of Conceptual art within the Latin American context has been treated in the excellentsurvey of this subject by Jacqueline Barnitz, "Conceptual Art and Latin America: A Natural Alliance," in Encounters/Displacements: Luis Camnitzer, Alfredo Jaar, Cildo Meireles  (Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 1992).

(9) Cited in Barnitz, p. 38.

(10) This and the previous statement come from aninterview with Antônio Manuel, Ondas do corpo, reprinted and translated in Cildo Meireles  (Valencia: Instituto Valenciano de Arte Moderno, 1995), p. 174.

(11) Cildo Meireles, 1975 statement, translated in Cildo Meireles, p. 175.

(12) Meireles, 1988 Statement, translated in Cildo Meireles, p. 176.

(13) Haacke's project was an all-out critique of the activities of the chocolate manufacturer and art collector, Peter Ludwig; Müller's reference to Haacke's critique seems to point much more indirectly to a critique of Paul Maenz, whose role in Weimar loosely mirrors Ludwig's in Cologne. On the modernist dialectic between the artist as flâneur or engagé, see Hal Foster, "The Art of Cynical Reason," in his The Return of the Real  (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996). On the modernist dialectic between fragmentation and totality, see Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, "Allan Sekula: Photography between Discourse and Document," Fish Story  (Düsseldorf: Richter Verlag, 1995).