1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Minimalism, your thoughts

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by itsstillmatt, Aug 1, 2007.

  1. thepataphysician

    thepataphysician Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I like Donald Judd a lot, particularly the furniture. I also like John Pawson's architecture. I doubt I could ever cut enough out of my life to live in one of his houses, but there is something about those floor to ceiling doors, wide planks, and amazing clean staircases that I love.
     
  2. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    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'.

    Jon.
     
  3. Fuuma

    Fuuma Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,816
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    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'.

    Jon.


    We're talking about conceptual art here, Caravaggio would never have thought of painting a Rothko and I doubt his work would have had the same effect as Rothko's own, while Rothko could conceive and possibly paint (don't make the mistake of thinking avant-garde artists aren't talented classically trained painters) a Caravaggio (although, just like Caravaggio, his work would most probably be a pale copy of the original).
     
  4. Get Smart

    Get Smart Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,158
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Location:
    A town called Malice
    We're talking about conceptual art here,


    I don't have any problem with conceptual art when the artist is taking his work on a deconstructivist journey from "realism" to whatver end he reaches (as many of the original Minimalists did). My problem is with conceptual artists who start from minimalism and attempt to, but don't succeed, in taking it anyplace other than mimicing what's already been done. Esp when the artist employs a factory of workers to make his "art", a la Laddy Gill for example.

    I would place modern day minimalist artists in with interior/environmental design, rather than "fine art". But I realize the lines separating all of these niches gets more blurred together as time passes.
     
  5. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    We're talking about conceptual art here, Caravaggio would never have thought of painting a Rothko and I doubt his work would have had the same effect as Rothko's own, while Rothko could conceive and possibly paint (don't make the mistake of thinking avant-garde artists aren't talented classically trained painters) a Caravaggio (although, just like Caravaggio, his work would most probably be a pale copy of the original).

    I was talking about skill, not the actual creation of art itself. And, you are just assuming he has such a skill, there really is not proof, fro the complexity needed to paint a Caravaggio is simply not found in Rothko.

    Jon.
     
  6. dkzzzz

    dkzzzz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Hoboken
    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.


    S. Dali considered Hitler a surrealist artist of politics. Unfortunately there were not a hint of irony in his statement.
     
  7. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    I was talking about skill, not the actual creation of art itself. And, you are just assuming he has such a skill, there really is not proof, fro the complexity needed to paint a Caravaggio is simply not found in Rothko.

    Jon.


    The fact that you're not aware of proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     
  8. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    S. Dali considered Hitler a surrealist artist of politics. Unfortunately there were not a hint of irony in his statement.

    Dali said very little that did not have a hint of irony, that included.
     
  9. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Matt, of the four examples you posted I also prefer the Long. I have trouble giving a useful answer to questions like this. To refer back to the Pollock discussion, a good artistic work of pretty much any "school" has a presence and energy that are powerful. I find examples of this in many works that likely would be characterized as "minimalist". There's also a lot of mediocrity and schlock grouped under the same label. If asked whether I like Impressionism, I'd give the same answer. There are impressionist works of great beauty that are thrilling to experience in person. There are also impressionist, or wannabe impressionist, works that are horribly pallid and lifeless.
     
  10. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    ImageWIS, I think you should refrain from posting in art thread when everything you can come up with is a picture of a sportscar and vague comparison between artists or art movements almost four centuries apart.

    !luc
     
  11. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    The fact that you're not aware of proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Yes, but you are the one who has to prove it, not I.

    Jon.
     
  12. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    ImageWIS, I think you should refrain from posting in art thread when everything you can come up with is a picture of a sportscar and vague comparison between artists or art movements almost four centuries apart.

    !luc


    This coming from a man whose first post of contribution (or lack thereof) to this thread has been to personally attack me other than to actually join the discussion while at the same time apparently not reading my header stating that I like Bauhaus (of which the TT is direct descendent), and showing two of its designed products which have evolved over the course of time. So, to you architecture is art, but automobile design isn't?

    Perhaps you should refrain from posting until you have something to actually contribute. And if you didn't understand my reaffirmation of Jason's post, that's your problem.

    Jon.
     
  13. dkzzzz

    dkzzzz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,360
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Hoboken
    Dali said very little that did not have a hint of irony, that included.

    Read something on his relationship with Franco, praise to Hitler's final solution, and maniacal hatred towards Bunuel.
     
  14. Willsw

    Willsw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Location:
    DC
    The fact that you're not aware of proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    If a self-portrait is any gauge of how he would have handled Caravaggio, here's Rothko:

    [​IMG]

    And just for kicks, Pollock (though this is a copy, I could not find the original online, though I have it in a book, and this is accurate):

    [​IMG]

    These two artists aside, de Kooning had classical training, but his skills are hugely exaggerated as he is held up as an Abstractionist who can actually paint. Mondrian was quite skilled as well.
     
  15. gdl203

    gdl203 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,643
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    I love some of it (e.g. love Serra and Mies) and like some of it. On average, I'd go with like rather than love just because there are a lot of self-proclaimed minimalist artists with little talent. (caveat: I live in the gallery district in Chelsea so I see a lot of bad art)
     
  16. spertia

    spertia Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Judd is my favorite minimalist artist, but I'm also quite fond of Sol LeWitt's sculptures:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    S. Dali considered Hitler a surrealist artist of politics. Unfortunately there were not a hint of irony in his statement.

    That was one of the reasons for Dali's split (banishment) from Breton's Surrealist group.
     
  18. Connemara

    Connemara Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    39,486
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I'm not a huge fran of minimalism.
     
  19. Lucky Strike

    Lucky Strike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,459
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Location:
    Norway
    Matt, of the four examples you posted I also prefer the Long. I have trouble giving a useful answer to questions like this. To refer back to the Pollock discussion, a good artistic work of pretty much any "school" has a presence and energy that are powerful. I find examples of this in many works that likely would be characterized as "minimalist". There's also a lot of mediocrity and schlock grouped under the same label. If asked whether I like Impressionism, I'd give the same answer. There are impressionist works of great beauty that are thrilling to experience in person. There are also impressionist, or wannabe impressionist, works that are horribly pallid and lifeless.
    All true. Minimalism, I think, can make for very powerful visual impacts, particularly if it's on the "land art" scale. Its weaknesses are twofold: As a style, it very often demands a text or ready-made interpretation, along with the work itself, in order to make any feasible attempt at interpretation. Because of that, it can also be very imitable, in the sense that bad "minimalist" art is too easy to make. Good stuff is correspondingly harder to create, I should think, given the limited forms of expression offered by the style.
     
  20. Kent Wang

    Kent Wang Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,720
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    What about minimalist architecture? Do you think they are just hacks that couldn't design something more artful? With architecture, of course, you run into matters of practicality that you do not with pure art.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by