ARTANDOBJECTHOOD*yMichoelriea
Inthis esslyMichaelFri€d criticLe,,MinimatArt- or 6 heca sir."literalisC'lrt-forwhathedesoibesas its inhercnt theatricrlitv.At tlrqmFume.Ie Jrgucsthdt ticmodemisr !rt!.iactudingpainingrr"l! ulpture.l,avecomc incrFasinglyo dependfor 6eir very conrjnua,r,on theiribilityto d4par rh".be.Friedcharacteria rh; |-hqtrical ,,,remsot apgticularrebtion bcr$een thebeholdFr6 $b/?ct and t1.,.wtk .itoqict- archtion tbat lalesplaceinrime, rhat bsduratiu,,Wh6e6defcltingtheatree',raihdeferringorsuspending ot-hbiecthoo,tFriedwasborn in t\'ew YorkCity in1939. }le took hisB.A. arhincetonUdversity.mdwas aRhodes Sc.holarat MertoD Colteg€,Or.f.rd.He isa ContrihurDs Edrtortor Alrlorun.ud heorgan;ed rt,TItr.Ahccan Paintcruexhibirionat the Fogg Arr Vuse;,HdN,.,,lUni\F6it).in 1985.HciscurendyaJunio;-FeIowinrhe H.w3,,l
Edwards'stoumalsfrequendyexploedand tested ameditation h.seldomallowcdto reachprint;ifall the world wereannibilated, h{,wote. . . and anew world werefreshlycreated, though it werc toexistin ev€ryparticularin thesarnemanneras this Eorl4 itllr'ouftlnot be thesame. Ther€fore,becauethere is conriDuity, which istnne, it isccrtain with methat tle worldedsrs anewevery mo-ment; tlatthe existenceof things everymoment c€asesand is evcrymoment rcnewcd.'The abidiDgassunnceis that'weever).momentsee }lesameproofof aGod as weshould haveseenfwe had seenHim createthc rvorldat6rst."-Perryl{iller,IoruttunEd.wadsIThe enterpriseknown variouslyas MinimalArt, ABC Arq PrirnaryStructues,and SpcciffcObjects islargely ideologcal.It seeks todeclareand occupy iposition--,onethat can be formulatedinrReprintedrom Artlrmrr,Iurc,196'7.ond Obiecthood
117
and in fact basbeenIormulat€d by someof itsleadingprac-If thisdistinguishesit from modemistpaiDtingandsculp-onthe one haad,it also marl$ animportastdifierenc€ betweenArt----or, asIprefe.to callit, litetarit afi----andPop orOPon the other.Fromits inception,literalist aftLas amountdtomore tla!an episod€ in th€history oftaste. It belongsto thebitory-almostttre nattrdl history-ofsensibility;andis not anisolated episodebut tbe expressionofageneralandcotrdition.Its seiousnesss vouched forby the{act that itinrelatiod both tomodemistpaintingand modemistsculptureliteralist art defles orlocat€s thepositioDitaspnes to occupyis, I suggest, iswhat makeswhat it declaressom-ethinghattobe ca[ed aposition.)Speciffcally,literalistart conceivetofitsef asneitbs on€nor tle otherj on theconEary,it is mothat€d!yspeciGceservations,or worse, about both;andit aspir€s,Perhapslotexacdy, ornot immediately,to disPlace them,butin any cosetoestablishtself as anind€p€ndentart on fl footing$'itl either.Theliteralist caseagainstpainting rests mainlyon two counts:theioral character ofalmost allpainting; and theubiquitousness,the virtueliDescapability,ofpicto al illusion-In Donaldwheryoustart relatingparts,in theffIstPlac€,you'rcassumingyouhavea vaguervhole-the rectangle ofthe canvas----ande6-nitepans,which is a[soewed up, bccauseyoushouldheveadefnite il)holsend maybenoparts,or veryfewlrThisMs saldbyJuddD an int€triw withBtucecloser,edit€dbv LucvLr,ippardmdpublisheds 'Questionso StellaandJudd,"AtNeod, VollXV,No.tS6"t@bs1966.The ItlrELrothibut€dn thepres€nt ssovo
Juddrnd Moris lEvc hettaLeo trem tb& intewiNfr@Judds65av SDe-cGc Obiets. Attt fqrbook.No. 8. 1965, orfr@Roberr Nlorb.sesvs."Not6d Solpturc' @d"Notemsoipturc, Patt2,"publish€d in Att',orn,vol IV, No. O, f€bmey1966, snd Vol. 5,No. 2, Octobd1966' re{Ec-nve&-(1hlG also talaore lfut by Motisf!@ihe ataloguc iothelrhibitiotr-!:iahtSolpto^:tlFAmbieuous Imsge, heldal theW,lker ArtCentd. Odob;FDce;bs1966.r I'houldadd that inlaving oulshat seosto @ iheposiHonluddand Mordhotd in comon I}av€ ieloredvdloujdifieMc betweenth@. andhav€ ued eenain lennrlsin contdtsfo. ivhichtheymay Dot hove bee! ilt€nd€d.Mor€ove., Ilave not alwavsildicatedwhichofthm achDlly soid dwt€ apdtidlarphdse;lhe altenativevould havebe€ntolitterthe lextvith f@rnotcs.
Leave a Comment