Imitated
It is possible to come to the same solution with different intentions, particularly if the final form is simple or Minimal. A work that consists of hundreds of unplanned gestural markings is far less likely to be repeated than a rendering of a numerical constant like a sphere. A comparison of Creed’s work no. 263 and Anish Kapoor’s When I am pregnant... seems to illustrate how a Minimalist form can be effective to indirect, humanistic ends. To me this questions the importance of intention within a work and how it is communicated to the audience.
My understanding of the forms suggests that they differ only in dimensions and proportions whilst the governing shapes and their interaction with the gallery space are almost identical. Each work consists of a semi-spherical protrusion from a wall just below eye level. Both have made efforts to diffuse the seam between works and wall so that the art and the art space are inseparable but it is clear that the intentions of these artists differ greatly.
In a lecture organised by Tate St.Ives and hosted by UCF Martin Creed discussed some of his works and spoke specifically about his thoughts leading up to work no.263. He stated that ‘paintings are something you put on a wall and look at’ and recalled wanting to make something that described this idea. It seems that work no.263 is a sculpture about painting and exercises the union of these disciplines facilitated by Minimalism in the 60’s. Unlike Judd’s stack however, work no.263 seems to have achieved a much smoother harmony of the two conventions. Whereas Judd’s stacks seem clearly to be sculpture in the position of painting Creed’s work seems to have taken a step further and merged the two formats of art wholly and avoided even the minimal referencing of one art form to another. He didn’t say much else about the work except to say that he didn’t want to say anything more about it nor would he want anyone else to say much more about it. This is a common stance for Creed, a disarming simplicity. It was difficult to make, particularly difficult to make it look so simple, and it was something he put on the wall to look at.
In discussion with Nicholas Baume, chief curator at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston, Kapoor addressed some of his works affiliation with Minimalism. He acknowledges an interest in the ‘objectness’ of Judd and suggests empathy between his own thoughts and the ideas of LeWitt. Throughout the interview Kapoor also shares some of the intentions of his practice that are more personal and ethereal which I feel are clearly distinguishing characteristics between he and Creed. Most obviously he steers clear of discussing the nuts and bolts of how a work is made, sidestepping a main interest of Creeds. He states that “the actual physical aspect of the object is something I’ve wanted to keep away from”. To me this seems to rule out a Minimalist stance, which would usually be aligned with the idea that ‘what you see is what you see’, Frank Stella’s well worn assessment of his own work in 1966. In response to a question about the various visual languages in his work Kapoor admits, “The illusory is more poetically truthful than the ‘real’”. If it weren’t for the distinction of ‘poetic’ truth this would equate to a prioritising of illusion, which would quash any further reading of the work as Minimalist. (Baume, N. 2008)
My understanding of these arguably contradicting intentions; Creed’s direct and Kapoor’s indirect, shapes the way I read two formally similar works. How important is it to for the viewer to know the intentions of the artist and what clues do I have to work from within the work?
For me, the most important distinction between these two pieces that presents itself to the audience is the title; it may even be the only solid distinction. Creed’s use of numerical and impartial titles echoes a long-standing Minimalist tradition of untitled works. This serves to introduce a reference free approach to the piece and puts focus directly on the materials present. Kapoor’s choice to reference a biological state encourages the viewer to relate in a humanistic way with the materials and form presented and contextualises the work as an opportunity for emotional response. The formalistic title grounds the work and the viewer in the here and now while the referential title encourages a sense of there and then, specifically an experience either real or imaginary of pregnancy.
Another means of distinguishing these works is their chronological relationship. When I am pregnant… was first exhibited in 1992, at the beginning of a decade know more for a prevailing grunge aesthetic than mature restraint. Work no.263 is credited a decade later in 2002. These works are not early experiments for either artist, they maintain relevance in both bodies of work as clear components of the artists respective themes and styles. How is it that this form could be so relevant over the course of a decade? I imagine that this is a symptom of Minimalisms ability to comment on the primary functions of art, which must be important to any artist of any ‘ism’, and has allowed motifs to trek through five decades, and counting. I think there is a correlation between Minimalisms considered and self-restrained nature and its evolutionary trajectory. It has been a mainstay of Minimalist art to exclude the external, anything that isn’t directly present in the object is irrelevant and so experience of Minimalism has been aloof to most influence. Without reflecting a changing political environment or tapping into unifying but dating current affairs the ideas and intentions of Minimalists have been on a slow burn. With such a limited pool of reference its growth has been slow and I would say that it has also been regressive.
Part of opening an art form to the influence of daily life is the acknowledgement that a lot of it is absurd. I mean that in the sense of existential absurdity, that there is no meaning and no truth and we do not understand the universe around us. I feel that this invites a sense of humour along with the rest of the human experience. That seems to be what Felix Gonzalez-Torres did when he re-engaged Minimalist motifs as an invitation to human interaction. In presenting forms of near geometry, including cubes and triangular corner units, Gonzalez-Torres created what has been call “Minimalism in drag” (Kwon, M. 2011) or what I see as Minimalism opened up to human influence. Alongside the heavier themes of sexuality and politics there is a clear interest in play throughout the works, which include fairy lights and sweet wrappers as materials. When paralleled with the balloons, puppies and toy balls of Creed’s work there is a clear allusion to the fun and silly materials and products around us that would have no place in the pre-Pop Minimalism of the 60’s. This step taken by contemporary artists engaging with traditional Minimalism to drop the sense of intellectual rigidity to engage with playfulness is an important guiding idea for me as I make decisions about my own practice and where it fits into the spectrum of Minimalism. I can’t decide whether I would describe this relationship of maturity in the past and immaturity in the present as a form of parent/offspring relationship, which suggests that the contemporary art practices that I admire inherited traits from the first generation of Minimalists. I don’t imagine a clear chronological distinction between the two as there doesn’t appear to be a stage that I can discern in which there was no Minimalist investigation, no clear line seperating parent from offspring. It seems much more likely that the change was gradual, not decided in one instant but organically implemented over time. I tend to think of this relationship as being an evolution akin to the tale of Benjamin Button, a development that directly opposes the conventional maturing of practice and bringing Minimalism from its lofty academic reputation to art that wants to be your friend. Seriousness turned to playfulness in a form of imitation similar to the nature of drag or costume. The idea that an artistic work’s content can be a reference to a previously established work interests me as a means of borrowing credibility and reassuring myself of the validity of my practice.
My understanding of the forms suggests that they differ only in dimensions and proportions whilst the governing shapes and their interaction with the gallery space are almost identical. Each work consists of a semi-spherical protrusion from a wall just below eye level. Both have made efforts to diffuse the seam between works and wall so that the art and the art space are inseparable but it is clear that the intentions of these artists differ greatly.
In a lecture organised by Tate St.Ives and hosted by UCF Martin Creed discussed some of his works and spoke specifically about his thoughts leading up to work no.263. He stated that ‘paintings are something you put on a wall and look at’ and recalled wanting to make something that described this idea. It seems that work no.263 is a sculpture about painting and exercises the union of these disciplines facilitated by Minimalism in the 60’s. Unlike Judd’s stack however, work no.263 seems to have achieved a much smoother harmony of the two conventions. Whereas Judd’s stacks seem clearly to be sculpture in the position of painting Creed’s work seems to have taken a step further and merged the two formats of art wholly and avoided even the minimal referencing of one art form to another. He didn’t say much else about the work except to say that he didn’t want to say anything more about it nor would he want anyone else to say much more about it. This is a common stance for Creed, a disarming simplicity. It was difficult to make, particularly difficult to make it look so simple, and it was something he put on the wall to look at.
In discussion with Nicholas Baume, chief curator at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston, Kapoor addressed some of his works affiliation with Minimalism. He acknowledges an interest in the ‘objectness’ of Judd and suggests empathy between his own thoughts and the ideas of LeWitt. Throughout the interview Kapoor also shares some of the intentions of his practice that are more personal and ethereal which I feel are clearly distinguishing characteristics between he and Creed. Most obviously he steers clear of discussing the nuts and bolts of how a work is made, sidestepping a main interest of Creeds. He states that “the actual physical aspect of the object is something I’ve wanted to keep away from”. To me this seems to rule out a Minimalist stance, which would usually be aligned with the idea that ‘what you see is what you see’, Frank Stella’s well worn assessment of his own work in 1966. In response to a question about the various visual languages in his work Kapoor admits, “The illusory is more poetically truthful than the ‘real’”. If it weren’t for the distinction of ‘poetic’ truth this would equate to a prioritising of illusion, which would quash any further reading of the work as Minimalist. (Baume, N. 2008)
My understanding of these arguably contradicting intentions; Creed’s direct and Kapoor’s indirect, shapes the way I read two formally similar works. How important is it to for the viewer to know the intentions of the artist and what clues do I have to work from within the work?
For me, the most important distinction between these two pieces that presents itself to the audience is the title; it may even be the only solid distinction. Creed’s use of numerical and impartial titles echoes a long-standing Minimalist tradition of untitled works. This serves to introduce a reference free approach to the piece and puts focus directly on the materials present. Kapoor’s choice to reference a biological state encourages the viewer to relate in a humanistic way with the materials and form presented and contextualises the work as an opportunity for emotional response. The formalistic title grounds the work and the viewer in the here and now while the referential title encourages a sense of there and then, specifically an experience either real or imaginary of pregnancy.
Another means of distinguishing these works is their chronological relationship. When I am pregnant… was first exhibited in 1992, at the beginning of a decade know more for a prevailing grunge aesthetic than mature restraint. Work no.263 is credited a decade later in 2002. These works are not early experiments for either artist, they maintain relevance in both bodies of work as clear components of the artists respective themes and styles. How is it that this form could be so relevant over the course of a decade? I imagine that this is a symptom of Minimalisms ability to comment on the primary functions of art, which must be important to any artist of any ‘ism’, and has allowed motifs to trek through five decades, and counting. I think there is a correlation between Minimalisms considered and self-restrained nature and its evolutionary trajectory. It has been a mainstay of Minimalist art to exclude the external, anything that isn’t directly present in the object is irrelevant and so experience of Minimalism has been aloof to most influence. Without reflecting a changing political environment or tapping into unifying but dating current affairs the ideas and intentions of Minimalists have been on a slow burn. With such a limited pool of reference its growth has been slow and I would say that it has also been regressive.
Part of opening an art form to the influence of daily life is the acknowledgement that a lot of it is absurd. I mean that in the sense of existential absurdity, that there is no meaning and no truth and we do not understand the universe around us. I feel that this invites a sense of humour along with the rest of the human experience. That seems to be what Felix Gonzalez-Torres did when he re-engaged Minimalist motifs as an invitation to human interaction. In presenting forms of near geometry, including cubes and triangular corner units, Gonzalez-Torres created what has been call “Minimalism in drag” (Kwon, M. 2011) or what I see as Minimalism opened up to human influence. Alongside the heavier themes of sexuality and politics there is a clear interest in play throughout the works, which include fairy lights and sweet wrappers as materials. When paralleled with the balloons, puppies and toy balls of Creed’s work there is a clear allusion to the fun and silly materials and products around us that would have no place in the pre-Pop Minimalism of the 60’s. This step taken by contemporary artists engaging with traditional Minimalism to drop the sense of intellectual rigidity to engage with playfulness is an important guiding idea for me as I make decisions about my own practice and where it fits into the spectrum of Minimalism. I can’t decide whether I would describe this relationship of maturity in the past and immaturity in the present as a form of parent/offspring relationship, which suggests that the contemporary art practices that I admire inherited traits from the first generation of Minimalists. I don’t imagine a clear chronological distinction between the two as there doesn’t appear to be a stage that I can discern in which there was no Minimalist investigation, no clear line seperating parent from offspring. It seems much more likely that the change was gradual, not decided in one instant but organically implemented over time. I tend to think of this relationship as being an evolution akin to the tale of Benjamin Button, a development that directly opposes the conventional maturing of practice and bringing Minimalism from its lofty academic reputation to art that wants to be your friend. Seriousness turned to playfulness in a form of imitation similar to the nature of drag or costume. The idea that an artistic work’s content can be a reference to a previously established work interests me as a means of borrowing credibility and reassuring myself of the validity of my practice.