Minimalism, your thoughts

I like minimalism with Baroque.

For vague reasons, I just can't quite get over the excessive decoration in the Baroque.

My own art is minimalist. Other descriptive terms are geometric and hard-edge.

I like alot of it, love some of it.
IMO Minimalism is hard to attack on aesthetic grounds since they were trying to remove that consideration from the intent /outcome.

I believe there were some critics who maintained that the modernists and their minimalism were attempting to disengage the physical relationship a person has between the self and enviroment thus creating a disembodied experience. That consideration was also, apparently, the motivation behind Fascist esthetics, which bombastic it may have been, was predominantly Modern in its approach.

I think some of the self refential aspects of Greenberg's ideas on art /painting helped set this up.

Yes I agree with what you say. I find the works beautifull and human precisely because they attempt to be the opposite. So the aesthetics is my reading, not the inital impetus for the work. I think they went to lengths to give emphasis to the idea and its physicality. I like Long as well.

I have nothing to say, and I am saying it.

koji

I don`t know that much about art, but minimalism reminds me a lot of my homeland, Japan. Minimalism is seen in lots of old architecture, gardens, paintings, food etc. While I have found some things from Japan to be very beautiful, I have never seen a minimalist piece of art that was beautiful to my eyes. Interesting, but never beautiful.

I love simplicity.

Classicality:

But, not severity.

My main problem with minimalism in art and architecture is that it is often quite repetitive. I feel that GOOD attempts at minimalism which may have some aesthetic merit, are vastly overshadowed by a googleplex of amazingly boring same-old-crap-that-I've-already-seen.

I was actually going to start an offshoot thread, but it was bound to be long-winded, so I'll just make a long-winded reply.

Minimalism represents, to some, the final stage in the "development" of painting and other mediums that began with Manet, or Cezanne, or whoever didn't feel like using glazes first. I always thought it was strange that these fellows and their path was chosen as the new "way" of art, as Victorian art didn't just cede to these artists, it still went on, and the people who believed in the elements that were the base of Victorian art continued to produce. If one were to make a timeline, a map of sorts, it would surely split at the turn of the century, but both paths continue today; one is, however, outside the "pale of history", as Danto put it. If one thought this way, an argument could be made that art since talent with your tools disappeared as a requirement isn't art at all, just some masturbatory group of thinkers who keep reproducing. Or, they could say that fine, Art has become what it has become, they simply aren't artists in the contemporary sense of the word. Odd Nerdrum takes this approach.

Back to Minimalism; as with most conceptual art I would prefer it as an essay. Aesthetically I'm a sucker for cubes and large expanses of color, most of minimalism I find appealing to the eye, but as design rather than art (that discussion is for another time). The critic-ruled art world that birthed the movement I find disgusting, and the hero-worship of the artist is just silly, and this goes for any artist.

To continue with conceptual art, most exhibits I go to today seem to be amateur social experiments, studies done under the auspice of being an artist so that any actual science doesn't have to be proven, or points don't have to be discussed. An essay concerning a political topic can be read, the point understood, the issue debated. A piece of art about the same political topic can be looked at, the plaque read, the message acknowledged. The viewer says "thank you, oh great artist, for telling us this in your installation. I may not agree, but this work is Art, and powerful, and symbolic, and indirectly direct, or..." In any case, regardless of my exaggerated pet peeve, I would prefer galleries with nothing but essays on the wall to Objects filling it, though I would certainly be annoyed if the essay were re-labeled Visual Art simply because some asshole who wrote them considers himself an artist rather than a writer.

So I've kind of gone off, but that's fine. I think painting should be what only painting can be, in this way I agree with ol' Clem and his New York Posse, but I think illusionism is part of that. I do not retract my calling of Pollock wallpaper, but I will add that I also am often impressed with the energy his canvases emit, and the sheer monumentality of many abstract expressionists can excite me. I just don't think this makes great, or even good, art. As humans, the most moving image is of a human, with ourselves we empathize most.

I apologize for incongruous statements, I did not re-read this post.

The Kapoor cube looks almost ominous (I'm obviously projecting personal fears), evoking an object on non-human origin. His mirrored works are reminiscent of the alien cube in the movie of the same name and do have that sort of open quality that makes them a perfect channel for projection and personal interpretation.

I'll show my inculture (is that an English word?) and say that I really like the last one but have no idea who made it...it does ring a bell but I really can't place it.