Originally Posted by dkzzzz
Don't you think that after "Black Square" by Malevich all minimalists just beating a dead horse?
Just a quick note: Malevich was a 'suprematist' with some seriously deep thoughts on art; just an example: http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2...tags-and-more/
Minimalism was a 60s/70s sculpture/conceptual movement led by Donald Judd, Richard Smithson (sp?) et. al. They were actually very politically motivated artists, though taken out of context now, most people just think it's junk.
Sometimes, you need the text and all the written blabbing to understand what made work come about in its time. Though it may look ridiculous today, at one time, it made a statement that informed the culture of its day. That's often the worth of art--as artifact of cultural movements and ideas.
The odd thing is that much of the early abstract art has been coopted by and absorbed into the most mainstream advertising aesthetics, to where it strikes no one living today as being anything other than decorative. The 'look' or 'style' divorced from its historical context becomes nothing more than packaging, and thus becomes banal and mundane to us. So, for example, you pick up a Mead Trapper Keeper and it's covered with kitschy printed images of squares and triangles, and you have no concept that an image like that at one time looked unique
. Same goes for Jackson Pollock, or Miro, Dali, etc.
I love art, even when I hate it. Better to have stuff you hate than none at all.
Socal, nice project you have going. And having many friends who are married, I don't think there's anything wrong with guest books.