Originally Posted by Get Smart
I like minimalist aesthetics, but not minimalist art. Although I do understand the progression that led to it, I find it's one of those art movements that had its relevance but now, if one were to be a minimalist artist, I would say that you're probably full of shit.
It's like self-proclaiming you're a dada artist and putting up a garden trowel for display on a pedestal. These ideas had their time and place, and their effects are full felt, but to do it again doesnt have any artistic merit imo.
All of the minimalist artists were trained artists who destructured their style into "minimalism" (Mondrian immediately comes to mind since he kept records of his own style's metamorphosis). When I was in art school there were way too many "minimalist" artists who couldnt really paint and it seemed like they used minimalism as a way to express their limitations in an "artistic" forum.
In the end, what you see is what you get, and I don't care too much for the the end result of minimalism, even if the conceptual theory behind it is valid and interesting. Minimalist artists should have been writers.
That was the basis of an art discussion I had with my cousin in Rome:
Whereas Caravaggio had the skill to paint a Rothko, Rothko would have never been able to paint a Caravaggio. I think it's exactly as you say, the lack of skill is offset by defining oneself as a "˜minimalist'.