TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTERS

LETTERS

DAMAGE CONTROL

To the Editor:

It would be wrong to conclude from Ann Temkin’s “Wear and Care: Preserving Judd” [Summer 2004] that Judd tolerated damage to his art. Visitors to “The Block” in Marfa who wonder about double standards, because they aren’t aware of how Judd worked after 1964—when fabrication began—or how he sometimes used damaged pieces returned to him in Marfa to work from (in what were, at the time, extremely private studios), are missing much of the importance of what they’re now seeing.

The leap from Judd’s interest in the subject of history to his appreciating damage to his art as “history” is spectacular. In fact, Judd hated damage and considered it a kind of graffiti, if not vandalism.

I agree that it’s relevant to the Judd restoration question to discuss “Panza,” but only if the discussion is based on what really happened at the time, not the version found in later, hardened

Sign-in to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for artforum.com? Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW for only $50 a year—65% off the newsstand price—and get the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the February 2005 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.