Artistic production and distribution are deeply shaped by institutional frameworks, market dynamics, and established regimes of visibility. Against this backdrop, the 1960s marked a crucial moment in which artists began to develop alternative forms of self-organisation that challenged these conditions. Through formats such as off-spaces, artist-run initiatives, publications, and multiples (small art objects in large editions), they created new modes of circulation and reception beyond traditional exhibition structures. Art publications and multiples, in particular, can be understood as material practices that operated in a productive tension between visibility and withdrawal. Rather than fully rejecting public visibility, these formats enabled what might be described as a strategy of selective visibility: artworks circulated in dispersed, mobile, and often ephemeral forms, thereby evading institutional control while remaining accessible to emerging counter-publics. This text examines how such practices functioned not merely as alternative media, but as spatial and infrastructural strategies of artistic self-organisation. 

In October 1963, graphic designers Christian Chruxin and Barbara Block opened the first show of their gallery situationen 60 situated in Frobenstraße 17, Kreuzberg, Berlin.¹ Exhibited were works by Polish artist Henry Berlewi, who was later described as the “father of Op-Art,” especially after William C. Seitz’s famous exhibition The Responsive Eye which took place at MoMa in 1965.² Besides his graphical artworks curated on the wall, there was one distinctive feature of the exhibition, which was the publication presented as an artwork. 

The piece features three upright paper objects, each formed by three rectangular sides arranged at right angles. The sheets are square in shape. In the foreground, a large circle appears on a white surface, followed by a transparent insert with repeating black wavy lines that create a moiré effect. The viewer is prompted to interact through the phrase “bitte die folie auf diesen elementen bewegen [please move the overlay over these elements].” Behind this lies a sheet displaying a series of black circles. The sheet on the left shows black dots in the corners that taper toward a central point. A slightly recessed element bears the artist’s name, “Henryk Berlewi,” and a portrait. The staircase motif shifts between white and black, light and shadow, echoing the visual language of Berlewi’s œuvre. Overall, the work consists of an unbound paper document combining text, graphic elements, clippings, and inserts without a fixed page order.

The publication designed by Chruxin was based on the idea of dividing the gallery into two equal parts: dokumentation a, the exhibition presented within the architectural space, and the concurrently published dokumentation b, a portable “gallery en miniature” in publication format.³ The latter was to be published bimonthly by Typos-Verlag in Frankfurt, a publishing house founded by Franz Mon and Friedrich Friedl, at a price of 12 Deutsche Mark, or 72 Deutsche Mark with an original edition.⁴ Chruxin describes his intention as follows: “Gemietete Ausstellungsräume werden überflüssig, wenn derartige Räume zerlegbar, versendbar und im Freien montierbar gebaut werden können [Rented exhibition spaces become obsolete when such spaces can be constructed in a way that allows them to be disassembled, shipped, and reassembled outdoors].”⁵ This deliberate invitation to manipulation inherent in Berlewi’s format actively intervenes in the work’s unfolding and exemplifies Umberto Eco’s concept of  “the open work.”⁶ In his essay of the same name, Eco describes works of art whose form is not definitively fixed but is only activated through the interpretive or physical participation of the audience. Thus, the dokumentation b becomes an open process that is only fully realised through its interaction with the audience.

After just three years and numerous exhibitions, situationen 60 closed, bringing an end to its experimental publishing projects as well.⁷ Since the gallery was cross-subsidised by successful design commissions and otherwise made no profit, these financial reasons likely led to its early closure. Despite this, Chruxin’s publication functions independently, as an exhibition in its own right, and could be viewed as a “portable gallery,” that continued to exist even after situationen 60’s closure. In its intermedia form—somewhere between an exhibition catalog, an artist book, and a multiple—it represents an early example of how conventional art formats were dissolved and replaced by flexible, interactive models which became new forms of artistic presentation and distribution.

Chruxin’s project exemplifies how art, as a self-produced infrastructure, can operate independently of institutions, while remaining closely intertwined with the aesthetic, media, and political currents of the time. His project, however, was not an isolated case but part of a broader shift in artistic practice during the 1960s. Similar endeavors across Europe and the United States demonstrate how artists increasingly treated exhibition formats themselves as sites of critique and experimentation. Among those was Yves Klein’s exhibition Le Vide (1958) at the Iris Clert Gallery in Paris which marked a radical redefinition of the exhibition space. By staging a virtually empty gallery containing only an empty vitrine in a white room and deliberately controlling access and atmosphere, the institutional framework itself became the subject of artistic practice.⁸ According to theorist Brian O’Doherty, Klein conveyed that through instruments such as white walls or objects of display, an art institution transforms objects into works of art.⁹ O’Doherty hereby elaborates on his widely discussed critique of the White Cube, highlighting its ideological, economic, and aesthetic implications. Artists at this time developed an even more far-reaching critique of the art system and its hierarchies and dependencies, one that took shape through artists’ self-organisation.¹⁰

In December 1961, Claes Oldenburg opened The Store in New York City, a shop that appeared to sell clothing such as socks, pants, shirts, and underwear, as well as food and household goods.¹¹ However, these goods were non-functional and inedible; all of the objects were made of painted plaster and were deformed. Oldenburg’s shop thus combined a retail space with a production facility. By merging production and distribution, Oldenburg anticipated the development of the later “artist-run galleries” and thereby criticised the power dynamics and the relationship of dependency between artists and gallery owners. A year later, in London, Gustav Metzger voiced similar criticism. In his Manifesto World he called for the following: “We take art out of art galleries and museums. The artist must destroy art galleries. Capitalist institutions. Boxes of deceit.”¹² This form of critique of the art world, as exercised by Klein, Oldenburg and Metzger permeated numerous artistic movements in Western Europe and the United States throughout the decade and was driven by the perceived negative influence of the art market and its hierarchies.

In West Germany at the time, institutional attention was primarily focused on the postwar restitution of classical modernism¹³ and later on styles such as Informel and Tachism.¹⁴ Meanwhile, other contemporary artistic developments received comparatively little consideration, as exemplified by documenta I and documenta II, reflecting a limited openness toward experimental and alternative artistic practices. This climate also led journalist Kurt Fried to open his own gallery, studio f, in his living room in Ulm in May 1959, where he celebrated exhibitions connected to the famous Ulm School of Design.¹⁵ The artists Heinz Mack and Otto Piene started renting their studio and experimental space at Glasbacherstraße 69 in Düsseldorf in 1957 and began hosting evening exhibitions.¹⁶ In Cologne, the artist Mary Bauermeister opened her studio in an attic apartment and hosted numerous concerts, happenings, and exhibitions between March 1960 and October 1961.¹⁷

In the late 1960s there was an intensification of self-organised artist-run galleries: Among others was Dieter Hacker’s 7. Produzentengalerie, which had by now completely turned its back on galleries acting as distributors and was selling his works directly. In 1972, he proclaimed: „Tötet euren Galeristen. Kollegen! Gründet eure eigene Galerie. Gründet eine Produzentengalerie [Kill your gallerist. Colleagues! Start your own gallery. Start a producer’s gallery].“¹⁸

As the case of Chruxin and Block illustrates, self-organised studio and gallery spaces required new forms of advertising and outreach, as well as new distribution concepts, which found expression in print media. This gave rise to experimental objects in the form of artist’s books, magazines, and multiples as well as ephemera of all kinds. Art historian Regine Ehleiter describes this effect as a comprehensive transformation of the modes of public presentation in art.¹⁹ In some cases, these forms of “going public” completely replaced the exhibition space. Art historian Gwen Allen considers the medium of the magazine to be an “alternative space” as well:

This term […] expresses the ways in which magazines paralleled and furthered the ideological and practical objectives of alternative spaces. Like other artist-run, independent, and nonprofit exhibition spaces and collectives, magazines challenged the institutions and economies of the mainstream art world by supporting new experimental forms of art outside the commercial gallery system, promoting artists’ moral and legal rights, and redressing the inequities of gender, race, and class.²⁰

dokumentation b is an example of such alternative ways of going public. By combining publication and three-dimensional space it transcends the traditional gallery space and becomes an architecture in its own right. This hybrid work defies categorisation within the framework of art history; it is more than just a publication or a multiple. George Maciunas worked similarly with Fluxus, where he cooperated with other artists on a global scale, sending boxes filled with multiples and small print products from New York to Europe and Asia.²¹ Making art more accessible, multiples were understood as a democratic medium through the act of multiplying works of art.²²

Drawing on cultural theorist Mathias Overgaard’s notion of art as a “reflective infrastructure,” these self-produced works can be understood not only as carriers of aesthetic content but also as media that reflect their own conditions of distribution and communication.²³ In this context, publishing itself can be understood as a curatorial practice. According to art theorist Nora Sternfeld and art historian Luisa Ziaja, the act of publishing constitutes a form of “post-representational curating” that goes beyond the traditional presentation of objects and instead emphasizes process, relation, and participation.²⁴ Art historian Marianne Wagner similarly describes journals as a “distributive display,” that is, as sites of discourse shaped by networks, contexts, and publics. Publications thus appear not merely as forms of documentation but as infrastructures that actively shape artistic discourse.²⁵ While early experiments such as Chruxin’s dokumentation b explored the publication as a portable exhibition space, other projects further embedded this logic of self-organised distribution. The series rot, edited by Elisabeth Walther and Max Bense, represents a particularly clear example of this development. Using rot as an example, it can be shown that a publication could function as a curatorial instrument that not only connected theory and art but actively brought them into the public sphere. 

Walther and Bense began publishing the series in 1960 at irregular intervals, with its main phase in the 1960s (42 issues) and only sporadic additional fifteen issues appearing until 1997.²⁶ Its aim was to publish current literary and artistic positions from within the editors’ network. Thematic focuses included Concrete and Visual Poetry as well as Computer Art, later supplemented by contributions from contemporary art and semiotics. The series thus functioned as an interface between artistic practice and theoretical reflection. Bense was actively connected within the art world, delivering lectures and publishing theoretical essays on art. From 1957 he directed the gallery Gänsheide 26, and from 1959 the Studiengalerie of the Studium Generale in Stuttgart.²⁷ Contributions to rot drew on these institutional and personal connections. The publication therefore assumed tasks typically associated with exhibition spaces: selection, contextualisation, and presentation of artistic positions.

The design of the series further reinforces this claim. The distinctive red cover created by Walter Faigle, consisting of alternating white and red vertical lines, formally references perceptual experiments associated with Op-Art.²⁸ The reduced production format—few pages, black-and-white printing, and the consistent use of lowercase lettering—can be understood as a programmatic decision. It combined economic constraints with an aesthetic and political stance aimed at accessibility and equality.²⁹ Design and production thus became integral components of the curatorial statement.

Drafts preserved in Elisabeth Walther’s estate document contacts with artists from various countries, and the issue rot 21, konkrete poesie international (1965), presented concrete poetry as a transnational phenomenon.³⁰ The publication therefore functioned not only as a medium of presentation but as an instrument for establishing international artistic networks. The curatorial function of rot becomes especially evident in the fact that works were sometimes first presented in the publication before being exhibited in a physical space. One example is Georg Nees’s rot 19, Computer-grafik, published in February 1965, while the works were not exhibited until November of the same year together with Frieder Nake.³¹ In this sense, the publication preceded the spatial exhibition and assumed its role as a site of first presentation. rot was therefore not only a supplementary medium but a primary exhibition space. This series furthered the idea of publications as exhibitions, which, for Chruxin and Block, were equal to architectural spaces but also works in their own right. With rot, it was no longer necessary to have a complementary space. This role also explains the significance of the series for emerging artists and writers. First publications by Timm Ulrichs and Friederike Mayröcker demonstrate that rot functioned as a platform for making new positions visible. Unpublished drafts preserved from the early years further indicate active interest from artists and reveal the reach of the network surrounding Bense and Walther.³² With its international reception, such as an article in the Times Literary Supplement in 1964, the series became part of a global discourse.³³ Finally, the programmatic orientation of the series can be understood in the context of Bense’s conception of intellectual public engagement. As early as 1949, he called for the “emancipation of intellectuals.”³⁴ “Intellectuals,” in his view, should not work in isolation but should create a public sphere and assume responsibility within discourse. In this sense, rot can be understood as a practical instrument of this position: a medium that did not not simply address a public but actively produced it.³⁵ The series rot thus exemplifies how publications functioned not merely as documentation but as active infrastructures shaping artistic discourse. Through editorial selection, theoretical texts, and distinctive design strategies, the series blurred the boundaries between theory and artistic practice and fostered international networks.

As already mentioned, the formats analysed here cannot only be situated within art history but can also be understood as paradigmatic precursors of contemporary forms of artistic infrastructure, including off-spaces, art associations, and other self-organised initiatives. Against the backdrop of recent political developments,³⁶ the question of how artistic and cultural practice can become public when financial resources diminish and institutional infrastructures weaken has gained renewed urgency. In many regions today, cultural funding is increasingly subject to economic constraints, shifting political priorities, and growing demands for measurable impact and efficiency.³⁷ At the same time, a broader political shift toward more conservative and right-wing positions has led to intensified debates about the role of publicly funded culture, the legitimacy of experimental artistic practices, and the autonomy of independent cultural actors. These developments place particular pressure on smaller institutions, off-spaces, and self-organised initiatives, which often operate with limited financial security yet play a crucial role in maintaining diverse and accessible cultural ecosystems.

The practices of the 1960s demonstrate that self-organisation is not merely a reaction to institutional deficits, but a foundational component of cultural infrastructure. Rather than replacing institutional frameworks, self-organised spaces have repeatedly complemented and challenged them, generating new forms of visibility, participation, and distribution. In this sense, contemporary off-spaces, Kunstvereine, and artist-run initiatives can be understood as essential elements of cultural infrastructure whose continued existence depends not only on individual commitment, but also on sustained public support and political recognition.

Footnotes

1. Holger Jost and Peter Weibel, eds., Die Teile der Summe: Begegnungen mit Christian Chruxin, visueller Gestalter, 1937–2006, Cologne: König, 2008, p. 102. ↑

2. Agata Pietrasik, “Re-Staging the Avant-Garde. Henryk Berlewi’s Return to Abstract Art,” Widok. Teorie i Praktyki Kultury Wizualnej, no. 3 (2013): p. 16. https://doi.org/10.36854/widok/2013.3.1380. ↑

3. Christian Chruxin, “Typoskript dokumentation b,” n.d., ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe Archives, Christian Chruxin, 0112-02-0340. ↑

4. Situationen 60 Galerie, Henryk Berlewi: Mechano-Fakturen, n.d. ↑

5. Christian Chruxin, “Beschreibung einer Galerie,” n.d, ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe Archives, Christian Chruxin, 0112-02-0140. ↑

6. Umberto Eco, The Open Work, trans. Anna Cancogni, London: Seeker and Warburg, 1986. ↑

7. Jost and Weibel, Die Teile der Summe, p. 105. ↑

8. Brian O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, expanded edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999, p. 87. ↑

9. O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube, pp. 89–90. ↑

10. Lawrence Alloway views the art world as a system comprising artworks, reproductions, media reception, galleries, museums, and private collections, all of which are interdependent in terms of supply and demand. Courtney J. Martin, “Art World, Network and Other Alloway Keywords,” Tate Papers, no. 16 (2011). https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/16/art-world-network-and-other-alloway-keywords, accessed April 29, 2026. ↑

11. Michael Lüthy, “Das Konsumgut in der Kunstwelt- Zur Para-Ökonomie der amerikanischen Pop Art,” in Shopping: a century of art and consumer culture, eds. Max Hollein and Christoph Grünberg, Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 2002, p. 149. ↑

12. Andrew Wilson, Auto-Destructive Art: Metzger at AA, London: Bedford Press, 2015. ↑

13. Kai-Uwe Hemken, “Kuratorische Steuerung kultureller Diskurse: Documenta, 1955,” in Inszenierung und Politik: Szenografie im sozialen Feld, eds. Ralf Bohn and Heiner Wilharm, Szenografie & Szenologie, vol. 11, Bielefeld: Transcript, 2015, p. 145. ↑

14. Informel and Tachism refer to gestural forms of abstract painting that emphasised spontaneity, materiality, and individual expression between the 1940s and 1960s. Sabine Autsch, “‘Die Welt schmeißt mit Farben’ – Abstraktion und Amerikanisierung auf der documenta 2 (1959),” in Modernisierung als Amerikanisierung? Entwicklungslinien der westdeutschen Kultur 1945–1960, eds. Lars Koch and Petra Tallafuss, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2007, p. 233. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839406151. ↑

15. Thekla Zell, Exposition Zero: vom Atelier in die Avantgardegalerie, ed. Klaus Gereon Beuckers, Wien: VfmK Verlag für moderne Kunst GmbH, 2019, p. 397. ↑

16. Zell, Exposition Zero, p. 56. ↑

17. Anette Hüsch, “Ein künstlerisches Einmaleins. Mary Bauermeister begegnen,” in 1+1=3: Die Kunstwelten der Mary Bauermeister, eds. Regina Göckede and Anette Hüsch, Kiel: Kunsthalle zu Kiel, 2022, pp. 11–18. ↑

18. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst / Berliner Künstlerprogramm, ed., Die politische Arbeit des Künstlers beginnt bei seiner Arbeit: 7. Produzentengalerie, Dieter Hacker, Zwischenbericht 1971–1981, Berlin: Berliner Künstlerprogramm des DAAD, 1981, p. 11. ↑

19. Regine Ehleiter, Ausstellen in Publikationen: zum Wandel des Öffentlichwerdens von Kunst in den 1960er Jahren, Munich: Edition Metzel, 2024, p. 34. ↑

20. Gwen Allen, Artists’ Magazines: An Alternative Space for Art, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015, p. 7. ↑

21. Dorothee Richter, “Fluxus. Kunst gleich Leben? Mythen um Autorschaft, Produktion, Geschlecht und Gemeinschaft,” Zurich: On Curating, 2012, pp. 210–13. ↑

22. Maja Wismer Sachs, “Die Assimilation der Multiples: von ephemeren Auflagenobjekten bei Joseph Beuys und ihrer Rolle in gesellschaftlichen Dynamiken Westdeutschlands ab Mitte der 1960er Jahre hin zum repräsentativen Sammlungskonvolut in internationalen Museen,” 2021, p. 73. https://doi.org/10.5451/UNIBAS-EP96309. ↑

23. Mathias Overgaard, “Art as Reflective Infrastructure,” in Infrastructure Aesthetics, eds. Solveig Daugaard, Cecilie Ullerup Schmidt, and Frederik Tygstrup, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2024, pp. 237–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349961. ↑

24. Nora Sternfeld and Luisa Ziaja, “What Comes After the Show? On Post-representational Curating,” From the World of Art Archive, ONCURATING.org, vol. 14, no. 12: pp. 22–23. https://www.on-curating.org/files/oc/dateiverwaltung/old%20Issues/ONCURATING_Issue14.pdf. ↑

25. Marianne Wagner, “‘In and out’ – Die Zeitschrift als institutionskritisches Medium,” kritische berichte – Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften, vol. 42, no. 2 (2014): p. 32. ↑

26. Reinhard Döhl, Johannes Auer, and Friedrich Block, “rot – gesamtverzeichnis,” Als Stuttgart Schule machte, 2018. https://www.stuttgarter-schule.de/rot.htm, accessed April 29, 2026. ↑

27. Kerstin Thomas, “Max Benses Auseinandersetzung mit der bildenden Kunst,” in Max Bense: Werk – Kontext – Wirkung, eds. Masetto Bonitz, Alexandra Skowronski, and Claus Zittel, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung & Carl Ernst Poeschel GmbH, 2019, p. 246. ↑

28. Holger Jost and Jörg Stürzebecher, “Moderate Moderne: Innenraumgestaltung der Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart,” in 50 Jahre Neubau Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart 2011, ed. Werner Stephan, Stuttgart: Universitätsbibliothek der Universität Stuttgart, 2011, pp. 155–67. ↑

29. Jan Tschichold, Die Neue Typographie. Ein Handbuch für zeitgemäss Schaffende, Berlin: Brinkmann & Bose, 1987, p. 83. ↑

30. Gerhard Rühm and Marc Adrian, “Entwurf für rot,” n.d., ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe Archives, Elisabeth Walther-Bense, 0129-02-05096; Edgardo Antonio Vigo, “Entwurf für rot,” n.d., ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe Archives, Elisabeth Walther-Bense, 0129-02-0992; Adriano Spatola, “Papierarbeit / Entwurf für rot,” n.d., ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe Archives, Elisabeth Walther-Bense, 0129-02-04617. ↑

31. Max Bense, “Zu einer Ausstellung Computer-Grafik am 5. November 1965,” ed. Niedlich Wendelin, Kritisches Jahrbuch, no. 1 (1966): pp. 49–50. ↑

32. The ZKM Archive holds two drafts for rot 3 by Wolf Vostell, one of which is a leporello. Marc Adrian also produced a draft containing his early computer-generated poems. ↑

33. “The Myth of Precision,” Times Literary Supplement, September 3, 1964. ↑

34. Max Bense, Technische Existenz. Essays, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1949, p. 74, as cited in William Stewart, “‘Anerkannt oder Ruiniert’: The Intellectual Politics of Max Bense’s Axiomata (1944),” 2020, p. 79. https://doi.org/10.25969/MEDIAREP/18754. ↑

35. Ibid. ↑

36. Julia Hubernagel, “Kulturstaatsminister Wolfram Weimer: Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her,” Die Tageszeitung: taz, March 14, 2026. https://taz.de/Kulturstaatsminister-Wolfram-Weimer/!6157080/; Lars Hendrik Beger and Stefan Koldehoff, “Ist Wolfram Weimer ein Kulturkämpfer oder ein Kämpfer für die Kultur?,” Deutschlandfunk, March 24, 2026, 24:38. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kulturkaempfer-oder-kaempfer-fuer-die-kultur-die-politik-von-bkm-wolfram-weimer-100.html. ↑

37. Milly Burroughs, When Culture Is Cut, Everyone Suffers – Not Just the Creative Industry, April 1, 2025. https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/the-view-from-berlin-arts-and-culture-budget-cuts-creative-industry-010425; Anny Shaw, “Berlin Government Approves €130m Culture Cuts,” The Art Newspaper – International Art News and Events, December 23, 2024. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/12/23/berlin-government-approves-130m-culture-cuts; Zuzanna Czebatul, “Why Berlin’s Budget Cuts Should Be a Wakeup Call,” Frieze, January 13, 2025. http://www.frieze.com/article/why-berlins-budget-cuts-should-be-wakeup-call. ↑