Download PDF scan of original article

At least two works by Wallace Berman are called <EM>Proof</EM>, but the title of this book comes from Dennis Hopper’s 1963, proto-conceptual object of that name. On the face of it, nothing could be simpler than to present a relief printing block along with a photograph of the block and its ink impression. But the title calls forward myriad associations.

A proof is a test impression in printmaking, and a trial print in photography. In this work, though, the evidentiary meaning of “proof” is also invoked: a photograph is thought to prove some fact about its subject—it attests to the existence of the subject, at least. Here we also have the object itself, as well as its mark—further proof of its actuality.

But wait. These three pieces of evidence are so different in material, in dimension, in color and, ultimately, in probative value that the authority of the photograph is greatly undermined. What kind of proof is this, that so grossly distorts the story it tells?

If Hopper’s piece is proof of the photograph’s basic unreliability, it also invokes yet another sense of the word in its imperviousness to facile analysis. For the photograph and the print are independent objects unto themselves, and their existence, affirmed by their presence, is proof against the idea that they are insubstantial echoes of an authentic original.