1. No category

Questioning the art object 3: Minimalism and Pop Art.
Late Modernism (post WW2) saw an
increasing variety of attitudes towards the
art object.
-Traditional materials were still used, but
sometimes with a different approach, (e.g.
Sol LeWitt used drawing on the wall, with
no support.)
- Materials new to art were incorporated:
e.g. Minimalist artists introduced
industrial materials into artmaking;
-
Screenprinting, a simple mechanical
process, became popular in Pop Art
pieces (Andy Warhol, Ed Ruscha)
-
Art moved away from the gallery
altogether (e.g. earth art) or questioned
art institutions in some way (e.g. Daniel
Buren’s work)
A minimalist wall-piece: Sol LeWitt,
Cubic modular wall structure, 1966,
black painted wood, 110.3 x 110.2
x 23.7 cm
Quick review of last session: Sol LeWitt.
Regarded as the founder of both Conceptual art and Minimal art. His famous quote from
1967: ‘…the idea is a machine that makes art…’
For LeWitt , the idea was the artwork. What appeared on the wall, on a print, or as a
sculpture was the result of the artwork, not the artwork itself.
His wall-works were the result of his specific instructions, carried out by various assistants.
With some works, the instructions required the actual hand of the technician to be involved
with creating lines themselves, so although the work technically could be ‘reproduced’
anywhere in the world, in fact it would always look different. This raised questions about
the uniqueness of an artwork. Also, it meant that the final look of the work was
deliberately out of the artist’s control. So, how much of it was actually his art?
LeWitt, Drawing #273: Lines to points on a grid, 1975.
Chloe Cheng, Considering Sol LeWitt with HSC
Vis Art Class 2012, various biro lines on paper,
3cm x 10cm, 2012
LeWitt’s use of drawing to create monumentally-sized works was a
new approach, questioning the traditional status of drawing as a more
personal project, or a study towards a painting or sculpture.
He did away, too, with a traditional support (paper, canvas) when he
worked on walls.
He used text and language in specific ways….namely, to write instructions about how
to create the work. How have we seen text and language used in art previously?
LeWitt, Wall drawing 38, coloured paper
stuffed into pre-existing holes on a wall,
1970. Instructions:
Tissue paper cut into 1½-inch squares and
inserted into holes in the gray pegboard
walls. All holes in the walls are filled
randomly.
LeWitt still called this a ‘wall drawing’ but
has created the work in a different way. He
responded to the wall as it was presented
to him. Again he uses seriality, system,
repetition, and the hands of his technicians
are involved in unpredictable ways.
How could we say that LeWitt’s work impacted
on the relationship between audience and
artwork?
• He literally made the audience ‘think outside the square’ – they could no longer point
to the work within a frame or on a plinth and know that this was the artwork. In fact,
the artwork was invisible in LeWitt’s case. We saw the end result of his artwork.
• An art lover couldn’t buy his work, take it home. (He did do some murals that were
permanent fixtures in buildings, etc.) But it couldn’t be ‘tucked under your arm’ and
brought home. This lack of art as a commodity (a thing that could be bought and sold
easily) forces the audience to become more conscious. It’s tricky. Confusing.
• Because of the marks being made by assistants etc, the audience becomes conscious
of the ‘problems’ or challenges that the artist is throwing at them, the questions he is
asking of them – what is art anyway? Who’s hand needs to create the mark? And
importantly, who says so?
Minimalist art was concerned with the nature of materials; measurements;
repetitions (‘seriality”) and space. It tended to be plain and simple; no
complex forms. Again, the context the artwork was placed in was important
– not so much in conceptual terms (making us think) but physically. The
gallery space – the size and nature of it – as well as our physical bodies and
size - were features in the consideration of this art. Issues of scale are an
important factor in how we relate to an artwork.
Stainless steel; plexiglass; iron; bricks;
concrete; plywood were all used as art
materials. The art of Minimalism
typically avoided personalised
expression and gesture and was
geometric (straight, industrially or
mechanically produced lines, cubes,
boxes etc) which emphasised industrial
production over the hand of the artist.
Donald Judd, Untitled, stainless steel and
plexiglass, 1968, 83.8 × 172.7 × 121.9 cm
Donald Judd, Untitled, wall mounted work, 21 x 642 x 21cm, 1965
http://whitney.org/WatchAndListen/Artists?play_id=435
Characteristically, minimalist work sought to avoid
nuance (subtle differences) and maintain simplicity.
They were trying to avoid symbolism or codes. The
work was meant not to be related to in an emotional
way, like the gestural works of Abstract Expressionists.
Dan Flavin, Pink out of a corner (for Jasper
Johns), 1963, flourescent light, 243.8 x
15.2 x 13.6 cm
The positioning of this work is interesting. What can we say about it?
Sigh…remember the olden days? How could we compare
Minimalist art with say, a work from the Symbolist movement? in
terms of both materials used, and the intention of the artist?
Gustav Klimt, The Kiss, 1907-8, oil and
gold leaf on canvas, 180 x 180cm
We could perhaps say that Symbolist
Art lends itself to the Subjective
Frame, and the Minimalist more to
the structural (and cultural) frame?
World events in the 1960s and 70s saw in increase in mass-produced goods
and industrialisation. As well, this period saw protests to do with human
rights issues across the Western world. Such issues as race; feminism;
colonialism; the peace movement (especially the Vietnam war); the green
movement all became more vocal at this time. A questioning of the status
quo was happening throughout society, but at the same time other groups
were celebrating the turbo-charged modernity of the Western world.
Pop art reflected back the mad
mad world of consumerism –
the disposable; the new; the
flashy; the cheap. It celebrated
it, and in doing so raised
questions about it. However we
are much more able, from this
distance, to look critically at this
art. It was not created with a
postmodern critique in mind. A
lot of Pop art was a celebration,
or even just a reflection of the
world around them.
Ed Ruscha, Standard
Station, Amarillo Texas
1963, oil on canvas, 162 x
303cm
Pop art was art of the everyday, and looked outwards to
the advertising signs, posters, comics on the street and in
magazines and movies. It deliberately lowered the bar on
what could be considered art (remind you of anyone?) It
was also an art that tended to be associated with the
young and groovy, so could be attractive but also could
be confronting, as youth was associated with the anti-war
protests, rock music and the rising drug culture.
Andy Warhol (US, 1928-1987)
Campbell’s Soup cans, oil on 32
canvases, each canvas 50 x 40cm.
Originally exhibited with each
separate canvas resting on a shelf.
Warhol moved to silk screen
printing in the early sixties. This
acted to further depersonalise
the works.
Warhol: ‘…the reason I’m painting this way is because I want to be a machine… …I
think it would be terrific if everyone was alike…’ (Swanson, 1963)
‘…If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surfaces of my paintings
and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it…’ (Warhol, 1968)
Warhol was deliberately vulgar and deliberately (but only selectively) anti-original. He
used assistants for his work, incorporating their mistakes etc. that occurred, as with
the image below. He played to the media in a very knowing way, which was a new but
developing thing at the time. Ironically, his talk about not being original and about
everyone being the same, was a sensation in itself, a kind of scandal. A celebrity cult
grew up around him and his work.
Warhol, Untitled, from Marilyn Monroe series,
Series of 10 screenprints, 91 x 91cm, 1967
As with the actress Elizabeth Taylor, Warhol
Created many images of the famous Monroe,
who had died a few years previously.
This use of mistakes in the screenprinting process
could be said to be similar to LeWitt’s use of
the hand of his assistants in his wall drawings.
Is there a difference in the intention of the artist
though?
Warhol, Big Electric Chair,
screenprint, one of series,
1967
This rather horrific image of an electric chair (which was used to execute prisoners
In New York) was published in a newspaper after the execution of some famous
Criminals. Much of Warhol’s imagery was concerned with death. How has he treated the
Subject in this work?
•
•
Clip on donald Judd sculptures:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=81324
Minimalism: http://www.moma.org/collection/theme.php?theme_id=10459
•
Fineberg, Jonathan, Art since 1940: strategies of being. Upper Saddle River: 1995, Prentice
Hall Publishing.
•
•
Gene Swanson, ‘What is Pop Art?’, Artnews, vol 62 (Nov 1963): 26.
Andy Warhol, ‘Andy Warhol’, Exhibition Catalogue Stockholm Moderna Museet, 1968,
unpaginated.