WHY AND HOW MOVEMENT AND EXPERIENTIAL ENGAGEMENT WAS
INCORPORATED? WITHIN MODERNISM ART PRACTISE, WHY WAS
ABSORPTION DEEMED THEATRICAL AND, THUS, PROBLEMATIC?
Ka Cheong Chiang 110107681
Sze Ching Phoebe Wong 110046699
WHAT IS MINIMAL ART?




A form of abstraction (painting or sculpture)
Can also be called the ABC art, literal art, reductivism and rejective art
Began in 1950s and reached its peak during the mid 1960s – mid 1970s
Key characteristics of minimalism:



Clarity and simplicity of form
No narrative
No anecdotal content or references
HOW THE MOVEMENT AND EXPERIENTIAL
ENGAGEMENT WAS INCORPORATED?



Richard Serra’s qualities in sculpture - Pictorial forms
Titled Arc – Self-aware amongst the passing viewers
Serra’s work refers greatly to Smithson
Experiences varies depending on perspective
 Element of parallax


Peter Collins – “Changing ideals in Modern Architecture”

1970 – rise of illusionistic effect
WHY THE MOVEMENT AND EXPERIENTIAL
ENGAGEMENT WAS INCORPORATED?


Key figures – article Jeffrey Kipnis “ A personal reflection on the
architecture of Herzog & de Meuron”
Hdm’s work – ornament and Minimalism
 Provides effortless infiltration of architectural conflicting categories
WHY THE MOVEMENT AND EXPERIENTIAL
ENGAGEMENT WAS INCORPORATED?

Rem Koolhaas – undeniable beauty and proponent
 Unencumbered by historical/ formal typology
WITHIN MODERNISM ART PRACTICE, WHY WAS ABSORPTION
DEEMED THEATRICAL AND THUS, PROBLEMATIC?

Michael Fried – Art and Objecthood




Influential and controversial attack on minimalist sculpture
Distinguishes minimal art as literalist art
Past literalist art ambiguous towards sculpture and shape
Question arised: “What is it about objecthood as projected and
hypostatised by the literalists that makes it, if only from the perspective
of recent modernist painting, antithetical to art?”
WITHIN MODERNISM ART PRACTICE, WHY WAS ABSORPTION
DEEMED THEATRICAL AND THUS, PROBLEMATIC?

Michael Fried



Plea for a new type of theatre and with theatre now as the negation of art
Cites: object to be main focus of the system , beholder the focus of situation
Notes: Greenberg (Founder of analysis) – theatrical effect is basically stage
presence
3 reasons of theatrical



1) Size of the work
2) Entities of everyday encounter
3) Meaning of the object
WITHIN MODERNISM ART PRACTICE, WHY WAS ABSORPTION
DEEMED THEATRICAL AND THUS, PROBLEMATIC?

Michael Fried


Anthropomorphism – Centre of practice and theory of literalist
Claim- not proven or substantiate but true to his view
 Theatre and theatricality in conflict – modernist art and paintings

3 suggestions
1) Success or the existence of arts - increased depending on its
capability to overcome theatre
 2) Degeneration of art as it reaches the condition of theatre
 3) Concepts of quality and value - the centre of art and the meaning of it

WITHIN MODERNISM ART PRACTICE, WHY WAS ABSORPTION
DEEMED THEATRICAL AND THUS, PROBLEMATIC?

Michael Fried




Emphasizes the experience, persists in time – essential centre to literalist art
Literalism and theatre share certain characteristics
Characterised virtual universality in sensibility perverted by theatre
End quote: Presentness is grace
CONCLUSION

Contributors



Richard Serra, Robert Smithson, Robert Morris, Peter Collins, Herzog & de
Meuron and Rem Koolhaas etc.
Devise and improve upon each other where allowance for both movement
and experiential engagement to be incorporated
Michael Fried – Minimal art deemed theatrical
Turning point in history marked by scholars
 Minimalism first deemed/switched to newer, more modern views


Led to believe as the following of elements:



Simple in design or material
Constant change in view and perspective regardless of object
Therefore most simplicity in form but not experience
REFERENCE

Battcock, Gregory. Minimal art: a critical anthology. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1968

Bois, Yve-Alain., and Shepley John. “A Picturesque Stroll around Clara-Clara.” October 29, no Summer
(1984): 32-64.

Colpitt, Frances. Minimal Art: the critical perspective. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.

Fried, Michael. Art and objecthood: essays and reviews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Kipnis, Jeffrey. “The Cunning of Cosmetics: [Herzog & De Meuron].” Du, no. May (2000): 6-9.

Marzona, Daniel. Minial Art. Koln: Taschen, 2006.
Images:

http://artsconnected.org/media/ce/65/1d4237d145a1d06ab53b902c5281/1024/768/22397.jpg

http://understandingminimalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ellsworth-1-525x712.jpg

http://www.afterall.org/2012/10/01/GasWorks_Martin_panel_black_-538x358.jpg

http://www.spruethmagers.com/bilder/works/temp/morris_00097.jpg

http://www.theslideprojector.com/images/art1/chapter10-inthenatureofmaterials/plywoodshow.jpg

http://minimalissimo.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Richard-Serra-Tilted-Arc-4.jpg

http://minimalissimo.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Richard-Serra-Tilted-Arc-51.jpg

http://goodmorninggloucester.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/spiral-jetty.jpg