Questioning the art object 3: Minimalism and Pop Art.Late Modernism (post WW2) saw an increasing variety of attitudes towards the art object. -Traditional materials were still used, but sometimes with a different approach, (e.g. Sol LeWitt used drawing on the wall, with no support.) - Materials new to art were incorporated:

e.g. Minimalist artists introduced industrial materials into artmaking;

- Screenprinting, a simple mechanical process, became popular in Pop Art pieces (Andy Warhol, Ed Ruscha)

- Art moved away from the gallery altogether (e.g. earth art) or questioned art institutions in some way (e.g. Daniel Buren’s work)

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

Quick review of last session: Sol LeWitt.Regarded as the founder of both Conceptual art and Minimal art. His famous quote from 1967: ‘…the idea is a machine that makes art…’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 various 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?

Chloe Cheng, Considering Sol LeWitt with HSC Vis Art Class 2012, various biro lines on paper, 3cm x 10cm, 2012

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

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.

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 meant not 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?

World events in the 1960s and 70s saw in increase in mass-produced goods and industrialisation. As well, this period saw protests to do with human rights issues across the Western world. Such issues as race; feminism; colonialism; the peace movement (especially the Vietnam war); the green movement all became more vocal at this time. A questioning of the status quo was happening throughout society, but at the same time other groups were celebrating the turbo-charged modernity of the Western world.

Ed Ruscha, Standard Station, Amarillo Texas 1963, oil on canvas, 162 x 303cm

Pop art reflected back the mad mad world of consumerism – the disposable; the new; the flashy; the cheap. It celebrated it, and in doing so raised questions about it. However we are much more able, from this distance, to look critically at this art. It was not created with a postmodern critique in mind. A lot of Pop art was a celebration, or even just a reflection of the world around them.

Pop art was art of the everyday, and looked outwards to the advertising signs, posters, comics on the street and in magazines and movies. It deliberately lowered the bar on what could be considered art (remind you of anyone?) It was also an art that tended to be associated with the young and groovy, so could be attractive but also could be confronting, as youth was associated with the anti-war protests, rock music and the rising drug culture.

Andy Warhol (US, 1928-1987) Campbell’s Soup cans, oil on 32 canvases, each canvas 50 x 40cm. Originally exhibited with each separate canvas resting on a shelf. Warhol moved to silk screen printing in the early sixties. This acted to further depersonalise the works.

Warhol: ‘…the reason I’m painting this way is because I want to be a machine… …I think it would be terrific if everyone was alike…’ (Swanson, 1963) ‘…If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surfaces of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it…’ (Warhol, 1968)Warhol was deliberately vulgar and deliberately (but only selectively) anti-original. He used assistants for his work, incorporating their mistakes etc. that occurred, as with the image below. He played to the media in a very knowing way, which was a new but developing thing at the time. Ironically, his talk about not being original and about everyone being the same, was a sensation in itself, a kind of scandal. A celebrity cult grew up around him and his work.

Warhol, Untitled, from Marilyn Monroe series, Series of 10 screenprints, 91 x 91cm, 1967

This use of mistakes in the screenprinting processcould be said to be similar to LeWitt’s use ofthe hand of his assistants in his wall drawings.Is there a difference in the intention of the artistthough?

As with the actress Elizabeth Taylor, Warhol Created many images of the famous Monroe, who had died a few years previously.

Warhol, Big Electric Chair, screenprint, one of series, 1967

This rather horrific image of an electric chair (which was used to execute prisonersIn New York) was published in a newspaper after the execution of some famousCriminals. Much of Warhol’s imagery was concerned with death. How has he treated theSubject in this work?

• 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.