Essays.club - Get Free Essays and Term Papers
Search

Minimalism

Autor:   •  October 12, 2017  •  2,237 Words (9 Pages)  •  471 Views

Page 1 of 9

...

It can then be acquired that the terms of this site specific process is understood that ‘site-specific work’ defines itself through its qualities, properties or meanings that produce specific relationships from an ‘event’ or an ‘object’ and the position that it completes.

This expression resonates that of the sculpture Richard Serra and his response to a public debate, and legal action, over the elimination of his ‘site-specific’ sculpture Titled Arc of 1981. That gives a key understanding of ‘site-specific’ work. Serra said that ‘To move the work is to destroy the work’ [9]. So to move his site-specific work is replacing it, to make it into something else.

Richard Serra is one of the leading American artists and sculptors from the period of post-Abstract Expressionism. In the late 1960s he began to extant, his work plays a major position in advancing the tradition of modern abstract sculpture in the result of Minimalism. His work draws fresh, extensive attention to sculpture’s probable for experience by the observer that together of physical and visual terms, no less often within a site-specific, if not an exceedingly public location.

Despite the fact that Serra’s attention on materials and process as well as intricacy of his forms move his work further away from the characteristics that are identified with minimalism. With the focus of the whole experience that was achieved by the work was alarmingly disjoin in response to the simple shapes that you would find in the work of Robert Morris for a period and also that of Donald Judd.

The authentic shape of the minimalists object depending on industrial means of production to be used, what becomes of the object based on its simple geometric forms assumed ahead in time of their realization the fusion of the copy in the creation of work based on repeating or continuing order. The use of manufactured bodies such as bricks and luminous components. Which is the function of consistent industrial materials and forms provided to the non-art look.[10] Judd’s serial boxes refer back to their industrial, serial production. Which gives the visibility to what type of production it is.

The interpretation of minimalistic seriality, approving of or resistance and negativity to the consumer culture, the tension between the remarkable and the conceptual approaches to art. Must we experience the work on a remarkable level, positioning our physiques and senses in interaction with its relevance in this manner potentially enduring the work as a subjectively granting? Or should we primarily understand the work in its position that is relative to and inside of various discourses, specifically the discourse of capitalist production. Hence, conceiving of it primarily as a form of ideological critique that is at best problematic. It may be just clear positivity? The to together are ways of extorting the work are possible.[11]

So the question here really is what the ongoing pressure between the remarkable and the deviating, amongst a rather positive and a negative ideological assessment of the works suggested. Instead of resolving the strain, clarifying that the elements of minimalism in general is aesthetically and cognitively interesting,[12] which is what makes it challenging.

In Michael Fried’s influential essay “Art and Objecthood,” [13] he argues that Minimalism does not go with the modernist description. When reading through Fried’s essay closely, the paper argues that Minimalism would probably have been accepted as a part of modernism in completing the persuasiveness of the essay.

In conclusion because the Minimalists’ main idea was that their concepts were a natural development within the modernist descent, and the only convincing way to counter this basis was by revealing, as Fried did, the parting of the Minimalist work from modernist concepts by using the Minimalists’ own terminology. Viewed in this light, the power of criticism in contextualizing movements in art, which in this case is Minimalism. It emerges as a clear conclusion; especially when such criticism is strongly rooted in essentialist notions, in this case those of Clement Greenberg.[14]

In “Art and Object-hood,”[15] Fried does not request to overlook Minimalism, but rather argues that Minimalism is effectively at odds with the modernist responsiveness. Stripped of the modernist vocabulary, Donald Judd’s statement that “a work only needs to be interesting” [16]becomes problematic for Minimalism. In order to grasp this problem, it is necessary first to outline Minimalism by the very terms provided by Minimalists, and in achieving so, to note that these terms were native from conceptual concerns of its initial experts such as Robert Morris and Donald Judd.

Clement Greenberg was perhaps the most influential art critic in 20th century. He would closely connect his support for Abstract Expressionism, specifically that of Jackson Pollock, his interpretations often shaped the work of many other artists such as Helen Frankenthaler, Morris Louis, and Kenneth Noland. This was his responsiveness to the properties of art- line, colour space and so on – his harsh approach towards criticism, and his understanding of the growth in modern art – even though they have all been tested. They have also influenced generations of critics and historians.

Greenberg articulates this notion in relationship to non-art. He recognizes the cutting edge work to have the appearance of non-art at their arrival. As most painting that looked like “non-art” [17]existed now and considered art, though not necessarily a successful work of art, the look of non-art had to be obtained in the three-dimensional. Greenberg argues that Minimalist work has gone so far in the extreme of being non-art that it is as non-art as “a door, a table or a blank sheet of paper.[18]

Minimalist Art remains too much a feat of ideation and not enough anything else. Its idea remains an idea, something deduced instead of felt and discovered. […] There is hardly any aesthetic surprise in Minimal Art … Aesthetic surprise hangs on forever – it is there in Raphael as it is in Pollock – and ideas alone cannot achieve it.[19]

In conclusion, Morris’s theory, that a work of art should no longer simply be understood as an object but as a field and a process. Morris argues along side with Judd and Serra the ways that minimalism provides us with an expanded understanding of what a work of art can be. On the other hand Greenberg’s theory contrasts these views on minimalism and what it endures. They both embrace great arguments, but without a doubt Minimalism has and will inspire artists to think of different ways of creating pieces of artwork and

...

Download:   txt (14.2 Kb)   pdf (180 Kb)   docx (15.1 Kb)  
Continue for 8 more pages »
Only available on Essays.club