![]() Rather, the artist invites the viewer to explore and see for themselves. It offers a stimulating tension between outward simplicity and inner complexity: outwardly, it does not lead the viewer through a motif it does not present what the viewer is supposed to see. Minimalist art, therefore, does not mean reduction to the necessary. For all these artists, their work was not minimalist, but complex and full of meaning and exploration. Other Artists such as Ad Reinhardt and Agnes Martin were inspired by Zen Buddhism and explored the emptiness and nothingness in their work and what fundamental impact it can have on our innermost being. More than 100 years ago, artists such as Constantin Brâncuși, Alberto Giacometti, and Kazimir Malevich gave their works a minimalist visual language to offer the viewer a new perspective on the essence of reality, form, and art. Minimalist artists have sought and continue to seek a greater truth, a deeper meaning behind the things we see and experience every day. ![]() It asks us to look beyond conventional boundaries and see the essence. Yes, minimalist art may seem simple at first glance. After all, why should a black or white canvas with a few strokes be considered art, right? That it is too emotionless and cold and cannot really be considered art. Therefore, I personally find it very unfortunate that one of the most common criticisms of minimalism in art is that it is so simple that anyone could do it. (MoMa has published an interesting video in which Donald Judd comments on the term: Watch it here) Artists such as Donald Judd, John McCracken, and Tony Smith emphasized that their work did not aim to reduce art to a minimum of material and form, but rather to explore new ways of revealing the relationship between object, space, and the viewer. They felt that the term “Minimal Art” was not appropriate to describe the complexity of their works and the underlying concepts. ![]() 1 Eventually, art critics adopted the term “Minimal Art” from an essay by Richard Wollheim from 1965 on modern American art and popularized it.īut almost all artists who were considered part of this movement at that time vehemently rejected the name. Names such as ABC Art, Idiot Art, and Cool Art were considered to describe the reduced visual language. In the mid-1960s, art critics, and art journalists tried to give a name to an emerging art movement that turned away from the gestural and expressive drama of Abstract Expressionism. An important question to ask in this context is: Is the term “Minimal Art” fundamentally wrong? This week I would like to elaborate on the fact that minimalism in art – contrary to the opinion of many – is much more profound than it appears at first glance. In one of my last columns, I explored the question of what makes minimalist art so controversial and whether it can be too minimalist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |