Conceptual art, Minimalism & Sol LeWitt

An art movement with some similarity to Conceptual Art, and happening around the same time (1960s/70s America.)

Again we see a use of non-traditional materials e.g industrial materials usually involved with construction – steel; plexiglass ( a kind of plastic); flourescent lights.

A minimalist wall-piece: Sol LeWitt, Cubic modular wall structure, 1966, black painted wood, 110.3 x 110.2 x 23.7 cm

Sol LeWitt (U.S.1928 – 2007) was involved with both Conceptual Art and Minimalism in the late 1960s. He said : “…When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art…” How could we contrast it with what we know about Abstract Expressionism?

LeWitt, Drawing #146, All two-part combinations of blue arcs from corners and sides and blue straight, not straight and broken lines., September 1972. Blue crayon, dimensions variable.

This work has been drawn, in crayon, directlyonto the walls of the gallery in which it wasexhibited. This was a totally new approach. Whatconsequences does this approach have?

For LeWitt , the idea was the artwork. What appeared on the wall, on a print, or as a sculpture was the result of the artwork, not the artwork itself.

His wall-works were the result of his specific instructions, carried out by assistants. With some works, the instructions required the actual hand of the technician to be involved with creating lines themselves, so although the work technically could be ‘reproduced’ anywhere in the world, in fact it would always look different. This raised questions about the uniqueness of an artwork. Also, it meant that the final look of the work was deliberately out of the artist’s control. So, how much of it was actually his art?

LeWitt, Drawing #273: Lines to points on a grid, 1975.

LeWitt worked with sculpture, drawings and printmaking. He was especially interested in seriality (working in series) and working logically, letting an idea totally work itself through. He regarded the SYSTEM of working out where the various variations of shapes and angles would go, to be the artwork. What we see on the wall is the RESULT OF THE ARTWORK, not the artwork itself.

His wall works were created entirely by his technical crew. He didn’t do any of the mark-making work himself. He wrote the instructions only. The drawings were with coloured crayon, chalk (now replaced by water soluble crayon) and pencil.

Working instructions for work installed at Art Gallery of NSW in 1977.

Because the artwork is the idea and theWorking out of the instructions, like a readymade, it is not unique, therefore it can be created in several galleries at the one time. Also, it can be recreated years after it was first created.

LeWitt’s use of drawing to create monumentally-sized works was a new approach, questioning the traditional status of drawing as a more personal project, or a study towards a painting or sculpture. He did away, too, with a traditional support (paper, canvas) when he worked on walls. He used text and language in specific ways….namely, to write instructions about how to create the work. How have we seen text and language used in art previously?

LeWitt, Wall drawing 38, coloured paper stuffed into pre-existing holes on a wall, 1970. Instructions: Tissue paper cut into 1½-inch squares and inserted into holes in the gray pegboard walls. All holes in the walls are filled randomly.

LeWitt still called this a ‘wall drawing’ but has created the work in a different way. He responded to the wall as it was presented to him. Again he uses seriality, system, repetition, and the hands of his technicians are involved in unpredictable ways.

How could we say that LeWitt’s work impacted on the relationship between audience and artwork?• He literally made the audience ‘think outside the square’ – they could no longer point

to the work within a frame or on a plinth and know that this was the artwork. In fact, the artwork was invisible in LeWitt’s case. We saw the end result of his artwork.

• An art lover couldn’t buy his work, take it home. (He did do some murals that were permanent fixtures in buildings, etc.) But it couldn’t be ‘tucked under your arm’ and brought home. This lack of art as a commodity (a thing that could be bought and sold easily) forces the audience to become more conscious. It’s tricky. Confusing.

• Because of the marks being made by assistants etc, the audience becomes conscious of the ‘problems’ or challenges that the artist is throwing at them, the questions he is asking of them – what is art anyway? Who’s hand needs to create the mark? And importantly, who says so?

Minimalist art was concerned with the nature of materials; measurements; repetitions (‘seriality”) and space. It tended to be plain and simple; no complex forms. Again, the context the artwork was placed in was important – not so much in conceptual terms (making us think) but physically. The gallery space – the size and nature of it – as well as our physical bodies and size - were features in the consideration of this art. Issues of scale are an important factor in how we relate to an artwork. Typically minimalist sculptures did not use a pedestal, or plinth but were just on the floor.

Donald Judd, Untitled, stainless steel and plexiglass, 1968, 83.8 × 172.7 × 121.9 cm

Stainless steel; plexiglass; iron; bricks; concrete; plywood were all used as art materials. The art of Minimalism typically avoided personalised expression and gesture and was geometric (straight, industrially or mechanically produced lines, cubes, boxes etc) which emphasised industrial production over the hand of the artist.

Donald Judd, Untitled, wall mounted work, 21 x 642 x 21cm, 1965

Characteristically, minimalist work sought to avoid nuance (subtle differences) and maintain simplicity. They were trying to avoid symbolism or codes. The work was not meant to be related to in an emotional way, like the gestural works of Abstract Expressionists.

Dan Flavin, Pink out of a corner (for Jasper Johns), 1963, flourescent light, 243.8 x 15.2 x 13.6 cm

The positioning of this work is interesting. What can we say about it?

http://whitney.org/WatchAndListen/Artists?play_id=435

Gustav Klimt, The Kiss, 1907-8, oil and gold leaf on canvas, 180 x 180cm

Sigh…remember the olden days? How could we compare Minimalist art with say, a work from the Symbolist movement? in terms of both materials used, and the intention of the artist?

We could perhaps say that SymbolistArt lends itself to the SubjectiveFrame, and the Minimalist more tothe structural (and cultural) frame?

• Clip on donald Judd sculptures: http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=81324

• Minimalism: http://www.moma.org/collection/theme.php?theme_id=10459

• Fineberg, Jonathan, Art since 1940: strategies of being. Upper Saddle River: 1995, Prentice Hall Publishing.

• Gene Swanson, ‘What is Pop Art?’, Artnews, vol 62 (Nov 1963): 26.• Andy Warhol, ‘Andy Warhol’, Exhibition Catalogue Stockholm Moderna Museet, 1968,

unpaginated.