_minimalism _
By: K. Ersoy
In order to understand minimal artists’ tendency to produce objects and not
images, we need to define minimalism. Michael Delahunt at Artlex (1) refers to
minimalism as “A twentieth century style of art stressing the idea of reducing
a work of art to the minimum number of colors, values, shapes, lines and
textures”. But I think this definition does not completely reflect what
minimal artists did. They did not get interested in ‘complex’ things as
colors, values, lines etc. They preferred objects to images or I would rather
say ‘brushstrokes’. Because that they believed that “less is more”, even
brushstrokes were too much for themMinimalists were against self
expression. They wanted to use the meaning a ready made object already has in
it. This was totally suitable for their purpose of using minimum effort and
material for an artwork. Preparing an image would consume too much of the
artists’ time and effort. And what’s more, it would have self expression in
it They also believed that art could be concieved by mind before execution.
That is, one must be able to explain an artwork to another who hasn’t seen it.
For example Mohology-Nagy gave instructions by phone to a factory for one of
his works(2). This can be thought as a instruction manual for an artwork (I
think we can call minimalism as D.I.Y. art!). But you can’t do this kind of
art with a painting. Can you think of it? “put some yellow there, mix red with
brown and put it on the tree with gentle strokes...”.With ready made objects,
just like an architect, giving directions from where you sit, with ‘minimal’
effort, you can create an artwork. And what is more you don’t have to do it
yourself. Dan Flavin’s Monument for V. Tatlin was made by the work of
electricians(2). It can be discussed whether it can be still considered as the
work of Flavin or not but the artists see this as their work because they
thought of it When I first came up with Duchamp’s urinal, I was surprised to
see that it is considered as art. The designer of the urinal had more work on
it. Even the worker in the factdry had more effort given to it. But what
Duchamp did was to present it to the public in a tilted position -a way people
are not used to seeing it- and say “this is art because I have my signature on
it”. I think this tells us the most about minimalism. Why must an artist
create something completely new by putting days of work in it, why an artist
can not use ready made object or objects and say I am using the meaning the
object(s) already have in them? Even more, minimal art is not always minimal.
Artists sometimes used large amunts of readymade objects as in 37 Pieces of
Work (2)in Guggenheim Museum uses 1,296 pieces. This shows us that minimal
artists were interested in readymade objects not only for their simplicity but
meaning Images need to be on a surface and you have to create a space on the
flat surface. Minimalists preferred to use three dimensional objects because
they had an actual space around them which is more effective than depicted
space (Again more is obtained by less). Here they use the readymade space
around the object A related matter to space is the environment. When you put
an object in a room, the walls, ceiling, floor and any other object becomes a
part of the artwork preparing the environment which in an image you have to
prepare. Placement in the environment can be changed with objects while images
must remain on the same place All this simplicity is very suitable to the
philosophy of minimalism Minimalist artists’ concern was to create
decorative installations rather than artistic images. It is obvious that
objects serve better to that purpose. They also wanted their art to be simple
and pure. They wanted it to be portable, detachable and storable... They
wanted the maximum with minimum.
_Bibliography _
Bibliography: 1. Delahunt, Michael , www.artlex.com , 1996-98 2. Stangos,
Nikos , Concepts of Modern Art , Thames and Hudson , pp. 244-254 , London
,1995. 3. Minimalism , www.columbia.edu/ eem13/minimalism.html.
Word Count: 676
| 
