'Less is more' - does less always give more? A personal evaluation…
'Less is more' - does less always give more? A personal evaluation of Minimalism
Albers - white square
does it warrant the level of value and respect that less reductive art commands?
is there more than meets the eye?
It takes but does it give
extends Duchamp idea and exhausts it
The best of M is when it offers some emotion or meaning - eg Mussolini head
Absence of meaning
What is Art?
non art materials / cheap
no 'hand' / anonymous/ machine made
geometric / hard edge / unadorned / repeats
mostly sculpture v paint
refer Duchamp / found object
reductive / pure / simplicity
Scale/ immersive / environment becomes pictorial field
unitary / wholeness
no illusion / 'window'
no composition hierarchy
it needs context of a gallery to hold respect
this art does not add, merely provokes
lacks appeal - because it lacks enough emotional content?
irony - immersive cf to Pollock quotes being 'in ' painting
theme park - sensorial pleasure - challenge
Irony - stella sells for millions!
Triumph of object over subject
an intellectual game for the players
Lost respect for the audience - hockney quote on art & comms
Give & take - takes and does not give
Stella & Newman?
USA / supremacy of NYC
No group movement / manifesto
Steve Reich/ correction / being in the audience (not vicarious)
Mussolini Head/ desire to see whole
Caro Tate 'early one morning - left us cold
500 ton weight - creates emotion ...fear
Architecture gives utility - sense of freedom and mobility - a blank canvas
What you see is what you see - Stella
emphasis on viewer contribution
more about idea, not execution
no need to interpret / symbol / metaphor
All about space, object, viewer experience
meaning is not 'inside' but in the interaction & context
Turnpike drive reference
Rejection of Ab Ex
no gesture / emotion / expression
Stripped back, de cluttered, fresh, bold, grabby
Anti 'art market'
Accessible (but open to ridicule)
Pioneering , truly edgy
'So what', indulgent