Gabriel Almeida

The work of Joseph Cornell conserves a singular resonance since its momentum in

New York in the 1960s and 70s. Actively starting in the late 1930s with advent of

surrealism to New York, Cornell was popularized first on the avant-garde scene by

the Jules Levy Gallery in 58th street, which atmosphere has been interestingly

described by Clement Greenberg to be as far away as prosperity, remarking also,

you went there to see art but with no more real relationship with its atmosphere

than a tourist had. (Greenberg1961, 231) Since 1936, Cornell attempted clearly to

separate himself from Surrealism; famously, he corresponded to Alfred H. Barr1, one

of the directors of the Museum of Modern Art at the time I do not share in the

subconscious and dream theories of the surrealist. While fervently admiring their

work, I have never been a official surrealist, and I believe surrealism has healthier

possibilities than have been developed. (Hartigan, 103) It has been a common trope

to relate this idea of healthier possibilities with a kind of program by Cornell that

at the same time separates and connects him with the surrealist, without really

establishing a clear the extent of this in terms of his works. Other numerous

ambiguities abound on our understanding of Cornell and his works, for example; the

apparent progressive techniques he employs on his films and boxes (namely,

collage, use of sourced-footage, his extremely evasive montage), and his pronounced

romantic view of film (here I am thinking of the beginning passages of Enchanted

Wanderer excerpt from a Journey Album for Heidy Lamarr, a text by Cornell, in

which he argues about the profound and suggestive power of the silent film to
evoke an ideal world of beauty, or later, when he gratifies Lamarr for speaking

again the poetic and evocative language of silent film, if only in whispers at times,

besides the empty roar of the soundtrack2 (Ashton, 151) ). Additionally, Cornells

later resonance of the works of artists, which were connected with what we

understand now as minimalism, is everything but clear. Certainly, due to the

abundance of the scholarship on Cornell and Surrealism, the present essay does not

pretend to encompass these topics as a whole, but it attempts to recognize critically

some of the main problems already establish upon this, as they present to us the

image through which we have come to regard Cornell and might clarify, partially, its

resonance.

Among the major issues to elucidate, I find the character of Cornells collage

technique to be one of the key points of interest to explore the relationship of his

work from that of other members of Surrealism. It is extremely ostensible, if we

divided the major corpus of Cornell works between collages, box-assemblage and

films, that the idea of grouping something, being it 2D-images or 3D-things, is key to

the creation of meaning. I pretended, when I started this essay, to take this insight

for granted, but when it came to practically try to make some sense of the variety of

vague statements on Cornells art, I came to regard as more necessary to enter into

this discussion that I though might find a better place somewhere else. The reason

for this is that by separating the social and historical qualities of the described

method at a given point of time, or in other terms, its nature, it is easy to come to

terms with its transformation in a specific artist.

Hence, there are two major forms in which Cornells association technique has been

understood: Annette Michelson and others commentators regard the experience of

Cornell boxes as theatrical a conjoint of disparate objects in the synthesis of

Lautramonts Encounter, rendering concrete and vivid that Encounter as the

primary mode of consciousness. (Michelson, 49) In these and other passages,

Michelson defines the this sur-realistic or hyper-realistic form of experience as

two fold: on the hand as a theatrical space, the space of encounter, referring to the

catchphrase of surrealism taken from Lautramont: as beautiful as the chance

encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table. On the other

hand, the objects themselves are understood as concrete and vivid. I consider the

latter terms to reflect a singular quality of Cornells objects, namely, their tendency

to represent themselves tautologically. We find this characterization also on the

writing of Diane Waldman, when she states, Cornell, like Duchamp, seeks out

ready-mades, but the American refashions or refinishes them, and in the process

stripes them of them of their individual significance, so that the objects functions as

symbols when brought into play against each other. (Waldman, 43) Then, the idea

of stripping them of their individual significance, reflects the same tendency just

mentioned, specifically, the objects accentuation of their own concreteness;

additionally, Waldman insight emphasizes the connection between the particularity

(or concreteness) of the objects to be the necessary cause of its own a generality

(abstractness), namely as they are brought to play against each other as symbols.

Even more precise on these, Clement Greenberg asserts, in a review of a Cornells

exhibit in 1942, that the stuffed birds, thimbles, bells, and cardboard cut-outs, and
so forth which Cornell puts into the boxes faced with glass please by their

arrangement and the unspecified associations they call up, but mean or represent

nothing not themselves. (Greenberg1942 The nation, 133) Thus, I can conclude that

there was an amount of agreement amount critics about the particular objecthood

which Cornells objects expresses, and the necessity of this literality in order to

allow the associations to emerge.

This dialectic can be said to spring historically from the contradictions generated by

the practice of collage on the representation form of easel painting. These

contradictions become apparent on the work made by Braque and Picasso toward

1914, in which the attempts, one hand, to keep the separation between picture and

image, i.e. holding on to painting as an art of representation and illusion

(Greenberg1961, 71), but still being concern with obtaining sculptural results by

strictly non-sculptural means (Greenberg1961, 71), i.e. to produce paintings that

fulfill their critical function, leads them to the action of attaching the literal object of

representation to the canvas. From this, however, arouse a contradiction, namely,

that representation as such concretizes itself in the literal object at the foreground,

while the means of representation found themselves abstracted in the image plane of

the canvas. Thus, these elements find themselves at this specific moment on time as

oppose to each other, rather than interconnected. This separation was already by

1928 naturalized, as it can be seen on Breton anticipation of the cleavage between

those artist who were to explode the techniques of automatic creation in the interest

of structural and rhythmic coherence (namely, abstract means of representation),

and those who were to produce an art of oneiric representation

(concrete)(Michelson, 50) and his more ideological statements, so that it is

impossible for me to consider a picture as anything but a window, in which my first

interest is to know what it looks out on, or, in other words, whether, from where I

am, there is a "beautiful view," for there is nothing I love so much as that which

stretches away before me and out of sight (Breton, 400), or his comments about

Picasso, in order to be able to break suddenly away from sensible things, or with

more reason from the easiness of their customary appearance, one has to be aware of

their treason to such a high degree that one cannot escape recognizing the fact of

Picasso's immense responsibility. (403). I see the idea of the easiness of their

customary appearance as a new phenomena from, and towards which this crisis

sprang3. And conclusively, Cornell boxes can be said to arouse from this naturalized

opposition; the tautology of the object representing itself which is essential to the

understanding and the making of the boxes.

A few paragraphs above I use term theatrical, taken from Annette Michelson

description of Cornells work, but the insight that the term offers needs to be further

elaborated. Theatricality is category developed in the work of Michael Fried

Absorption and Theatricality, Painter and Beholder in the Age of Diderot publish in

1980, and it serves to characterize a specific relationship between an object and its

beholder. According to Fried, theatricality, which he rescues from Diderots criticism

of the Saloon and Dramatic art, refers to the experience of an object which

necessarily imply the presence before them of a beholder. (Fried, 4) In other words,

theatricality as oppose to absorption, presents the object as dependent on being

seen, and including its directly relationship with a beholder as a part of a specific

situation in which it is seen.

Cornells early works, and in which he is more daccord with the surrealists

influence, accept the theatrical as a given, but also something that has to be

overcome only through itself, for example, in Untitled 1931 (Fig.1) Cornell creates

an atmosphere in which the theatrical is overcome by the juxtaposition of different

planes of representation that confused the relationship within objects. In the upper

part of the picture we see not less than four or five figures, a bird, a kind of tool or

knife, a box of that seems to contain metal separations on the sides, a wooden

separation one on the center and a open door that bangs to the right side, and

finally, the upper part of an aerostat with a candle and some gas visible. Everything

is suspended into the air in which at first glance apparently represent the specific

moment in which the animal is taking the little girl up and the man gestures a sort of

attacking pose as he falls. The connection between the two movements, however,

seems to be ambiguous as the angle of the mans body indicates that his assault does

not seem to address the bird, but the girl; thus, the gesture becomes one of

desperation through which the man might pretend to save the little one, without

loosing any of its violence. This is further emphasized by the strange angle of the

tool, which does points towards the animal but a box on the lower left border of the

picture. Additionally, there is the contrast in weight between the two object that

appear to be on the mans back, the heavy box which seems to drag him down, and

the aerostat which pulls the composition to the upper frame of the picture and

seems to have taken the man and his box to that level on the open air. Finally, we
can even think that the two movements are not connected at all, and that the space

in between generated by the angle of the mans body and the direction of the tool,

puts him farther on the foreground, while the child and the bird on the middle

ground are out-of-his-reach. Thus, even though the overly dramatic representation

might strike us in the first place as theatrical, it escapes being perceived as such by

the juxtaposition of different elements of contrast that do never totally combine, but

are always kept apart formally. Thus, I would like to characterize Cornells collage

technique as an attempt to overcome the theatrical in and through itself; namely, his

associative method overcomes the presence of the beholder by its exposition to an

object that represents itself; in other words, they are means of representation with

which he asserts the dialectical between the theatrical and the tautological, with a

second outcome, the objects transformation. I take this procedure to depend on the

transposition of a response characteristic of human relationships to the relationship

between humans and inanimate or natural objects. The person we look at, or who

feels he is being looked at, looks at us in turn, and Cornells objects do the same.

On these terms, I think we can start to grasp the difference in Cornells technique

and intentionality with that of the other major surrealist influences. On the catalog

foreword in 1946, Cornell describes his work as, impressions intriguingly diverse -

that in order to hold fast, one might assemble, assort and arrange into a cabinet- the

kind of the amusement resorts with endless ingenuity of effect, worked by coin or

plunger or brightly color pin-balls travelling inclined runways- starting in motion

compartment after compartment with a symphony of mechanical magic of sight and

sound borrowed from the motion picture art into childhood into fantasy
through the streets of New York, through tropical skies. into receiving trays the

halls come to rest realizing prizes. (Waldman 43) In the strangeness of this

phrasing there is abundant material to analyze: impressions intriguingly diverse -

that in order to hold fast, one might assemble, assort and arrange into a cabinet-. If

we compare (Fig.2) Marx Ernsts, The Inmaculate Conception, with the picture we

just described, we can see a complete different treatment of the theatrical. In Ernsts

work, a picture is completely create by the collocation of different objects. The two

people on the background and the child face on the foreground which are the main

focus of attention combine (almost melt together) in giving us one whole

pshychological impression. The Inmaculate conception, the title, refers, according to

the dogma of the Catholic Church which I take as Ernts pretext, to the conception of

the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her

son Jesus Christ. The tension on the figures of the man and the woman as they stand

facing each other join in a way that none of Cornells figures do, because is in the

agreement with each other that these figures generate meaning, in other words, we

are to take them as a group rather than as separate objects. The conflict of the

figures of the background cannot be resolve but by the addition in form of puns of

the rest of the objects; the child/querubin on the foreground gesture of despair, the

hare on the middle ground with its vitality and vigor, (plus the fact, that the hare

was a Christian icon for fertility which Ernst seems to be explicity calling attention

to). The title also has to be consider as an additional object inseparable for the

meaning of the picture as a whole, it is important to account that this picture was

publish as part of a group on the the book Les femmes 100 tetes in which these title is
an inscription on the bottom of the image, and it is meant to be part of it. Thus, I

consider each element of Ernst picture to require its connection with each other in

order to create the implicit sexual connotation of the picture. Other objects such as

the gigantic bottle next to the man and the concentric apparatus or halo form on the

foreground, even though they are more complicated to relate with each other, they

do not affect my main point which is that Ernsts collage, by contrast to Cornells,

works by creating cohesion between objects, in an additive manner, and are to taken

as wholes rather than a sum of parts. Lastly, in terms of theatricality, Ernsts collage

embraces the theatrical and enhances it to produce a shock. Thus the phrase,

impressions intriguingly diverse -that in order to hold fast, one might assemble,

assort and arrange into a cabinet, demonstrates Cornell goal to save the objects on

their transformative matter, as impressions, as they transform themselves.

On the rest of this paper I pretend to explain the implications of these division as

they relate to the transformation of Surrealist program through Cornell. I take the

surrealist program to be a political program, and these gets express in more clearly

in a statement by Bretton in 1934, on the lecture What is Surrealism, Actually two

problems present themselves to us: One is the problem of consciousness, which

brought to light, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the relationship between

the subconscious and the conscious The other is that of social action to lead, action

concerning which we cannot be disinterested, considering, as we do, that the first

condition for the liberation of the mind is the liberation of man, and we can only

expect that from the proletarian revolution. (qtd. in 1936 Surrealism, 5)

The particularities of this movement are expressed on Walter Benjamins account of

it to the German public. For instance, the surrealist discovery of the the

revolutionary power of outmoded objects. (Benjamin, 181) Following Benjamin

description we find that the trick by which this world of things is mastered,

namely, the canalization of the energy of this objects by the surrealist into different

experiential forms consist in the substitution of a political for a historical view of

the past.(Benjamin, 182) Thus, we are meant to understand these new experiential

forms as political, as experiences that point beyond bourgeois social relationships,

beyond the commodity form of labor. The best image for our understanding of this

is the remark by Breton in Mad Love I am sorry not to be able to reproduce, among

the illustrations to these text, a photograph of a very handsome locomotive after it

had been abandoned for many years to the delirium of a virgin forest. (Breton1937,

13) This image of the locomotive is not representative of a particular aesthetic

value, but a political one, in which the object which has fall out of the dialectic of use

value and exchange value points, because of its existence, beyond the necessity of

these dialectic at all. This is surrealist politics in a nutshell. Cornell, since the

beginning of his career, has separated himself from the surrealist not only in his

technical approach, but also on his politics. I am even considering the former as an

outcome of the latter. The extent to which is even complicated to find references to

politics in Cornells notes and the fact that his commentator never take the problem

to recognize this say much in itself. There are two commentaries, however, that

might help to clarify this further. On the hand, in 1969 Cornel wrote, anyone who

has shown any concern with my work & has not been moved or inspired to
become involved somehow or another with the humanities in a down-to-earth

context has not understood its basic import. (Roscoe, 91) The humanities, here, is

the word that more unambiguously presents Cornells political thinking. What is

the program of the bourgeois party? Benjamin asks, a bad poem on springtime,

filled to bursting with metaphors. The socialist sees that finer future for our

children and grandchildren in a condition in which all act as if they were angels,

and everyone has as much as if he were rich, and everyone lives as if he were

free. Of angels, wealth, freedom, not a trace. These are mere images. Optimism

(Benjamin, 190) Cornel politics are the politics of optimism, the politics of

metaphor. But the political metaphor displaces reality; Cornells humanities state

the solution as a change of attitude. Travelling inclined runways- starting in motion

compartment after compartment with a symphony of mechanical magic of sight and

sound borrowed from the motion picture art into childhood into fantasy.

Cornells boxes attempted at education, an involvement with the humanities down-

to-earth, a change of attitude that do not represents more than a return to a purer

state, that of childhood, that of fantasy.6

This moral form of Cornells politics also helps us to account for the other main

difference between him and surrealism. Again on these Benjamin is on point, Only

in contrast to the helpless compromises of sentiment are certain central features

of Surrealism, indeed the Surrealist tradition, to be understood The seduction was

too great [an it still is] to regard the Satanism of Rimbaud and Lautramont as a

pedant art for arts sake in an inventory of snobbery. If, however, one resolves to

open up this romantic dummy, one finds something usable inside. One finds the cult
of evil as a political device, however romantic, to disinfect and isolate against all

moralizing dilettantism. (187) Later in that paragraph he quotes Lautramont as

having corresponded, 'of course, I somewhat swelled the note to bring something

new into this literature that, after all, only sings of despair in order to depress the

reader and thus make him long all the more intensely for goodness as a remedy. So

that in the end one really sings only of goodness, only the method is more

philosophical and less naive than that of the old school, of which only Victor Hugo

and a few others are still alive. (188)

There is, however, in both, Cornell and Surrealism, a melancholic yearning for a

particularity, which passes-by and which in order to hold fast has to strip it of any

individuality and transform it into a generalization. Because Cornells objects do

indeed dialectically combine and survive as representing themselves but they do

that in a general manner. And it is in these, in the practical means of transformation,

in which Cornells enterprise positively outstrips that of the Surrealist. For instance,

the first examples of boxes works by Cornell tend to be composed of a single object,

center in the composition, in the manner of Fig.3 A Dressing Room for Gilles; a work

created with a reproduction of a painting by Watteau, (Fig.4) Pierrot, formerly

known as Gilles. Cornell modification abstract the reference; Pierrot in the painting

is an individual whose indefinable expression increases in contrast to the rest of the

figures where they surround him and do not surround him. These becomes specially

striking in the upper part of the painting which is dominated by the central figure of

Pierrot, calmly staring at us and whose body presence heightens by its singular

rigidity. The gaze and its presence call attention to the human qualities of the actor,
these qualities somehow seem to go through the superficiality of his appearance and

affect directly. On the other hand, Cornells use of Pierrot is the utilization of his

gesture, and its new contextualization, surrounded by mirrors and the blue patterns

on the background just emphasizes him allegorically. Cornells Pierrot strikes as a

puppet; an actor on the stage even when in his dressing room, the actorness, in a

way, is what survives.

On Cornell, these processes of transformation into gesture, namely the

transformation of the object into symbol develops over time the practical means of

intoxication, in Benjamins terminology, which surrealist themselves could not.

To win the energies of intoxication for the revolution' this is the project about

which Surrealism circles in all its books and enterprises. This it may call its most

particular task. For them it is not enough that, as we know, an ecstatic component

lives in every revolutionary act. This component is identical with the anarchic. But

to place the accent exclusively on it would be to subordinate the methodical and

disciplinary preparation for revolution entirely to a praxis oscillating between

fitness exercises and celebration in advance. Added to this is an inadequate,

undialectical conception of the nature of intoxication. The aesthetic of the painter,

the poet, en etat de surprise, of art as the reaction of one surprised, is enmeshed in a

number of pernicious romantic prejudices. Any serious exploration of occult,

surrealistic, phantasmagoric gifts and phenomena presupposes a dialectical

intertwinement to which a romantic turn of mind is impervious. For histrionic or

fanatical stress on the mysterious side of the mysterious takes us no further; we

penetrate the mystery only to the degree that we recognize it in the everyday world,
by virtue of a dialectical optic that perceives the everyday as impenetrable, the

impenetrable as everyday. The most passionate investigation of telepathic

phenomena, for example, will not teach us half as much about reading (which is an

eminently telepathic process), as the profane illumination of reading about

telepathic phenomena. And the most passionate investigation of the hashish trance

will not teach us half as much about thinking (which is eminently narcotic), as the

profane illumination of thinking about the hashish trance. The reader, the thinker,

the loiterer, the flaneur are types of illuminati just as much as the opium eater, the

dreamer, the ecstatic. And more profane. Not to mention that most terrible drug

'ourselves' which we take in solitude. (190) For dependable upon the difference

marked above on Cornells politics, he does not limit his appropriation with the

more programmatic surrealist forms, and takes his representation of objects to

ideas, such in Fig.5, in which the real object is not present, is understood however to

exist in between the space generated by the other objects with their same real

presence; or in Fig. 6 in which plastically multiplicity parallels a psychological

multiplicity impossible to find in many other surrealists works. In conclusion, by

taking Cornell both in his technique and politics interconnected, I do not think that

he should be consider a break with surrealism, but rather its transformation, the

measure of which should concern us as its resonance abounds in many problems

today.
Figures:

Fig. 1. Joseph Cornell. Untitled, 1931. Paper collage mounted to paperboard

Fig2. Marx Ernst, The Inmaculate Conception. La Femme 100 Ttes, 1929. Print.
Fig. 3 A Dressing Room for Gille, 1939. Construction, 15 x 8 5/8 x 5 11/16 inches.
Fig4. Antoine Watteau, Pierrot (Gilles), 1718 - 1719. Oil Paint. Louvre, Pars.
Fig5. Joseph Cornell. Andromeda: Grand Htel de lObservatoire. 1954. Box
construction with glass, painted and paper covered wood, metal rod and chain, and
cut and pasted photographs. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
Fig6. Joseph Cornell, Untitled (Window Facade), ca. 1950-1953. wooden box with
glass containing painted wood, nails, glass, and mirror. Collection SFMOMA
Notes

1. Greenberg describes Bar as that inveterate champion of minor art,

(Greenberg1961, 231) which even though is extreme, give us a better

picture of the differences generated between downtown and uptown New

York.

2. The empty roar of the soundtrack is an important catchphrase for Cornell

more modern technique, and one of the most overlooked, his use of

sound. As we shall see, Cornell literalizes that empty roar in his films,

such as Rosa Hobart, Aviary, A legend for Fountains, and others,

including the ambiguity characteristic of his works. The said ambiguity is

express by the fact that most of the films that have sound have two

versions. Interestingly, all of Cornell soundtracks seem to attempt, with

more or less elegance, to a kind of playful effect.

3. I consider this process to generate for the contemplative nature of man on

their capitalism, following Gyrgy Lukcs remarks: In the process we

witness, illuminatingly, how here, too, the contemplative nature of man

under capitalism makes its appearance. For the essence of rational

calculation is based ultimately upon the recognition and the inclusion in

ones calculations of the inevitable chain of cause and effect in certain

events - independently of individual caprice. In consequence, mans

activity does not go beyond the correct calculation of the possible

outcome of the sequence of events (the laws of which he finds ready-

made), and beyond the adroit evasion of disruptive accidents by means

 of protective devices and preventive measures (which are based in their

turn on the recognition and application of similar laws). Very often it will

confine itself to working out the probable effects of such laws without

making the attempt to intervene in the process by bringing other laws to

bear. (As in insurance schemes, etc.) (23)

4. Again, the causality of this can be found in Lukcs, the contemplative

stance adopted towards a process mechanically conforming to fixed laws

and enacted independently of mans consciousness and impervious to

human intervention, i.e. a perfectly closed system, must likewise transform

the basic categories of mans immediate attitude to the world: it reduces

space and time to a common denominator and degrades time to the

dimension of space.(25)

5. O you, who have never heard the voice of heaven, who think man destined

only to live this little life and die in peace; you, who can resign in the midst of

populous cities your fatal acquisitions, your restless spirits, your corrupt

hearts and endless desires; resume, since it depends entirely on ourselves,

your ancient and primitive innocence: retire to the woods, there to lose the

sight and remembrance of the crimes of your contemporaries; and be not

apprehensive of degrading your species, by renouncing its advances in order

to renounce its vices. As for men like me, whose passions have destroyed

their original simplicity, who can no longer subsist on plants or acorns, or

live without laws and magistrates. They will respect the sacred bonds of

their respective communities; they will love their fellow-citizens, and serve
 them with all their might: they will scrupulously obey the laws, and all those

who make or administer them; they will particularly honor those wise and

good princes, who find means of preventing, curing or even palliating all

these evils and abuses, by which we are constantly threatened; they will

animate the zeal of their deserving rulers, by showing them, without flattery

or fear, the importance of their office and the severity of their duty. But they

will not therefore have less contempt for a constitution that cannot support

itself without the aid of so many splendid characters, much oftener wished

for than found; and from which, notwithstanding all their pains and

solicitude, there always arise more real calamities than even apparent

advantages (Rousseau, 42) These are the differences between Cornells

politics and the surrealists politics. Furthermore, Cornells politics become

impossible in the mid-1960, or at least it is impossible to hide them anymore,

and he gives the only comment I have found at the time on the extant

literature, Ive been in a strange physical state with regard to travelling into

town. Quite wonderful rapport in the time (before this) all my life. It may be

the time. Terrible thing going on in the world. (Roscoe, 114)

Bibliography:
 Ashton, Dore.Cornell, Joseph.A Joseph Cornell Album. New York: Viking

Press, 1974. Print.

Benjamin, Walter, Demetz, Peter, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms,

Autobiographical Writings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.

Print.

Breton, Andre, lAmour fou, Paris, Gallimard, 1937.

Breton, Andre, Le Surrealisme et La Peinture. Reprinted by Brentano (New

York: 1945). This excerpt from the English translation by David Gascoyne in

Andre Breton, What is Surrealism, London: Faber and Faber, 1936.

Fried, Michael. Absorption And Theatricality: Painting And Beholder In The

Age Of Diderot. Berkeley: University Of California Press, 1980. Print.

Greenberg, Clement. The Nation. 26 December 1942. Reprinted in Greenberg,

Clement, OBrian, John. The Collected Essays And Criticism. Chicago:

University Of Chicago Press, 1986-1993. Print.

Greenberg, Clement. Art And Culture: Critical Essays. Boston: Beacon

Press.1961. Print.

Hartigan, Roscoe Lynda, Joseph Cornell: a Biography, Cornell, Joseph.,

McShine, Kynaston.Ades, Dawn.Joseph Cornell. New York: Museum Of

Modern Art; 1990, c1980. Print.

Levy, Julien. Surrealism. New York: The Black Sun Press, 1936. Print.

Lukcs, Gyrgy. History And Class Consciousness: Studies In Marxist

Dialectics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971. Print.

 Michelson, Annette, Rosa Hobart and Monsieur Phot: Early Films From

Utopia Parkway, Artforum, 11.10 June 1973. p. 47-57; Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques,Gourevitch, Victor,The Discourses And Other Early

Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.

Waldman, Diane. Cornell, The Compass of Boxing. Art News. Vol. 64. March

1965, pp. 42-45, 49-50.