Minimalism, your thoughts

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

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.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel

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.

 

[dkzzzz]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

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.

 

[Willsw]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

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:

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):

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.

 

[gdl203]

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)

 

[spertia]

Judd is my favorite minimalist artist, but I'm also quite fond of Sol LeWitt's sculptures:

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

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.

 

[Connemara]

I'm not a huge fran of minimalism.

 

[Lucky Strike]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

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.

 

[Kent Wang]

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.

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

T 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?
Bauhaus is more of modernist movement, though minimalism is linked to the geometrical abstractions found in some bauhaus painters. Now, I have no idea why automobile enthusiasts and audi marketing linked their product to bauhaus, as I fail to see the link. A quick google search showed me that indeed, this was supposed to be an hommage from Audi. To over simplify Bauhaus is a movement which promoted the industrialisation of art creation: the goal of any arts is construction. Once again, I fail to see how a sportscar could be defined as "bauhaus". !luc

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel

Bauhaus is more of modernist movement, though minimalism is linked to the geometrical abstractions found in some bauhaus painters.
Now, I have no idea why automobile enthusiasts and audi marketing linked their product to bauhaus, as I fail to see the link. A quick google search showed me that indeed, this was supposed to be an hommage from Audi.
To over simplify Bauhaus is a movement which promoted the industrialisation of art creation: the goal of any arts is construction. Once again, I fail to see how a sportscar could be defined as "bauhaus".

!luc

Can a chair be Bauhaus?

Jon.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

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

Jon.

No, actually I don't have to prove anything. If you want to labor under false assumptions, that's certainly your perogative. I'm merely pointing out that the specific factual assertion you made has no factual basis.

But if you want to get all burden-shifty about it, the fact that you're making the specific assertion that he lacked talent would generally place the burden on of proof on you.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

No, actually I don't have to prove anything. If you want to labor under false assumptions, that's certainly your perogative. I'm merely pointing out that the specific factual assertion you made has no factual basis.

But if you want to get all burden-shifty about it, the fact that you're making the specific assertion that he lacked talent would generally place the burden on of proof on you.

Not at all, you must prove that he had talent; the burden of proof is on you. I already presented my evidence, his art works which are nowhere the complexity or require the same skill that a Caravaggio would require. Now, show me a work by Rothko that has the same complexity and requires the same skill.

Jon.

 

[GQgeek]

I think minimalist art is nice for decorating a modern interior but that's about it. I don't really regard it as art.