Inherited
I have come across very few reassuring resonances between artists whose work spans the current timeline of Minimalism and Sol LeWitt and Pablo Valbuena is the best example. This comparison is not meant to advertise the works of these artists, the focus for me is entirely selfish. I hope to infer from the comparison the justification I need to continue as a strictly, or assuredly, Minimalist artist. If I can find an artist, or artists, whose current practice bears strong resemblance to the work of the early minimalists then I have support for my intentions as an artist. If it can be done then I can do it. What then are the similarities that I can call on as assurance of a postmodern Minimalism and what has changed so that I can produce work that is tied to works more than half a century old and still feel confident that I can be relevant today?
Like many of his peers working in New York in the 60’s Sol LeWitt was not a self-titled Minimalist. He spoke regularly of the importance of concept to his work stating, “the idea becomes a machine that builds the work” (LeWitt, S. 1967), which I feel is a reiteration of the use of numerical functions as form generating devices. Despite his reticence to adopt the label he has remained a critical figure in Minimalist discourse and he never exhibited work that contradicted the movement. LeWitt’s body of work focused acutely on ideas of sequence and series, manifestations of line, plane and volume and always with an aesthetic guided by white cubes. The execution of these sculptural objects was often outsourced to a craftsman, which is fitting with many practicing artists of his ilk, as the realisation of mathematical ideas is unforgiving to the untrained hand. To view LeWitt’s objects from this period, circa 1960-1980, offers a very limited palette of form and colour, at least in terms of the modular units that constituted almost every work. His audience would have become very familiar with the proportions of the open cubes and would be encouraged to look beyond the physical presence and concentrate more so on the decisions associated with their composition. In the work Serial Project 1 (ABCD) the viewer is aware instantly of a linear relationship of similarity in construction and progression in size. In positive terms it is an assemblage of forms solid or hollow, tall or wide but with a consistent reference to the cube and square. The probability then is that the audience will commit most of their attention following these relationships around the assembly until the whole movement is understood. There is nothing else stated by the work, it seems to be simply an opportunity to engage with an abstract idea.
Pablo Valbuena is a visual artist who studied and works as an architect but also engages in sculptural and architectural projection mapping processes that interact with the geometry of three-dimensional forms. His studies in architecture have clearly influenced his approach to fin art practice and he has expanded a craftsman’s vocabulary to an exploration of phenomenology. In comparison to LeWitt he is engaged with the same initial evaluation of scale and sequence but goes further by undermining the physical with an image of itself. In his work on the Augmented Sculpture series bright white light is used to highlight linear and volumetric proportions of solid white rectangular forms. Throughout the projection, which could be described as a type of animation, Valbuena re-prioritises sections of the object second to second by focusing the audience’s attention. At one moment the boxes my appear to be open constructions of linear form and the next moment they are filled to solidity as if by a liquid of the same material that held the linear form. The end product of the installation is a mesmerising, almost psychedelic experience of the space, a constant stream of questioning and guessing. The work can be equated with works such as Serial Project in terms of the immediate accessibility and vocabulary of clear geometric forms but Valbuena doesn’t allow the casual observation that LeWitt’s work does. Augmented Sculpture is not a passive object, it is dynamic and playful and engages an audience performatively. The viewer can be aware of the object but their understanding is temporary.
In my opinion Valbuena’s work is LeWitt’s by another means, a means that certainly would not have been available to LeWitt in the 80’s. However, Valbuena’s implementation of refined programming skills is the basis of the works impressive impact on his audience, it has a sense of magical illusion as it borders on the outer edge of our understanding of the mediums formal limitations while ultimately speaking of the same content as LeWitt’s modular cubes. The advancement I see here is the digital process of projection mapping is much better suited to the communication of mathematical quantities and geometrical proportions. There is a harmony of form and function that, along with technological marvel, elevates the experience of a Minimal form without sacrificing the intent.
Like many of his peers working in New York in the 60’s Sol LeWitt was not a self-titled Minimalist. He spoke regularly of the importance of concept to his work stating, “the idea becomes a machine that builds the work” (LeWitt, S. 1967), which I feel is a reiteration of the use of numerical functions as form generating devices. Despite his reticence to adopt the label he has remained a critical figure in Minimalist discourse and he never exhibited work that contradicted the movement. LeWitt’s body of work focused acutely on ideas of sequence and series, manifestations of line, plane and volume and always with an aesthetic guided by white cubes. The execution of these sculptural objects was often outsourced to a craftsman, which is fitting with many practicing artists of his ilk, as the realisation of mathematical ideas is unforgiving to the untrained hand. To view LeWitt’s objects from this period, circa 1960-1980, offers a very limited palette of form and colour, at least in terms of the modular units that constituted almost every work. His audience would have become very familiar with the proportions of the open cubes and would be encouraged to look beyond the physical presence and concentrate more so on the decisions associated with their composition. In the work Serial Project 1 (ABCD) the viewer is aware instantly of a linear relationship of similarity in construction and progression in size. In positive terms it is an assemblage of forms solid or hollow, tall or wide but with a consistent reference to the cube and square. The probability then is that the audience will commit most of their attention following these relationships around the assembly until the whole movement is understood. There is nothing else stated by the work, it seems to be simply an opportunity to engage with an abstract idea.
Pablo Valbuena is a visual artist who studied and works as an architect but also engages in sculptural and architectural projection mapping processes that interact with the geometry of three-dimensional forms. His studies in architecture have clearly influenced his approach to fin art practice and he has expanded a craftsman’s vocabulary to an exploration of phenomenology. In comparison to LeWitt he is engaged with the same initial evaluation of scale and sequence but goes further by undermining the physical with an image of itself. In his work on the Augmented Sculpture series bright white light is used to highlight linear and volumetric proportions of solid white rectangular forms. Throughout the projection, which could be described as a type of animation, Valbuena re-prioritises sections of the object second to second by focusing the audience’s attention. At one moment the boxes my appear to be open constructions of linear form and the next moment they are filled to solidity as if by a liquid of the same material that held the linear form. The end product of the installation is a mesmerising, almost psychedelic experience of the space, a constant stream of questioning and guessing. The work can be equated with works such as Serial Project in terms of the immediate accessibility and vocabulary of clear geometric forms but Valbuena doesn’t allow the casual observation that LeWitt’s work does. Augmented Sculpture is not a passive object, it is dynamic and playful and engages an audience performatively. The viewer can be aware of the object but their understanding is temporary.
In my opinion Valbuena’s work is LeWitt’s by another means, a means that certainly would not have been available to LeWitt in the 80’s. However, Valbuena’s implementation of refined programming skills is the basis of the works impressive impact on his audience, it has a sense of magical illusion as it borders on the outer edge of our understanding of the mediums formal limitations while ultimately speaking of the same content as LeWitt’s modular cubes. The advancement I see here is the digital process of projection mapping is much better suited to the communication of mathematical quantities and geometrical proportions. There is a harmony of form and function that, along with technological marvel, elevates the experience of a Minimal form without sacrificing the intent.