Minimalism, your thoughts

Originally Posted by Thracozaag

Click to expand...

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

koji



Jon.

I like Bauhaus, both old and new:





Jon.

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 ****.

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.

minimalism

.

Minimalist progression drove Christian Dior to introduce the chemise, during his final collection of couture clothes. The chemise, essentially a man's shirt extended below a woman's knees, was the exact opposite of Dior's introductory collection ironically remembered as 'the New Look.' Dior's first show emphasized deeply indented waists, padded busts and hips, and intricate dressmaking techniques.
Although Chanel evolved during her career, she stuck stubbornly to her suit, pearls and camellias. It's that 'uniform' for women, always hemmed close to the knee, that maintains Chanel's status as THE inventive, classical couturiere.

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.

Originally Posted by Get Smart

Click to expand...

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 ****.

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.

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Click to expand...

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).

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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