Focus your response on Fried's difficult essay: what does he find wrong with minimalist sculpture (also termed literalism, specific objects, primary structures, ABC art)? What does he prefer about modernist sculpture? Define his terms (part by part, theater, timelessness, presentness, etc.) - what is opposed to what? Why does he critique Tony Smith's description of the unfinished turnpike, for instance?
Last post !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, Michael Fried’s “Art and Objecthood” is incredibly difficult to understand, so my analysis of his essay may not be correct. One critique of minimalist sculpture that Fried expresses is its attempt to exist in time and space. In the beginning of his essay, Fried states that minimalist sculpture “seeks to declare and occupy a position—one that can be formulated in words and in fact has been so formulated by some of its leading practitioners” (556). The fact that Fried views minimalist sculpture as seeking a position, whose connotation implies a definitive mark, emphasizes how it attempts to exist in a certain point in time and space. Such an attribute of minimalist sculpture delineates from modernist sculpture, which seeks the entire experience. Within his essay, Fried states, “Everything counts—not as part of the object, but as part of the situation in which its objecthood is established and on which that objecthood at least partly depends” (559). My interpretation of this line is that when viewing sculpture, the viewer’s experience should not solely depend on the objects of the sculpture; rather, everything, the entire situation of viewing sculpture, is an integral part of the sculpture. Modernist sculpture does indeed include the situation, whereas minimalist sculpture merely highlights the object(s) of the sculpture. What comes to mind is Jasper John’s Flag (1954) and the huge debate over whether or not his artwork was a flag or a painting. When I viewed this work of John’s at SFMoMA, it was easier to think of it more as a painting rather than a flag; the setting of the art museum, with many other paintings and works of art surrounding John’s piece, allowed me to view John’s work as something more artistic than just a mere flag. My influenced perception of John’s Flag as a painting relates to how Fried thinks of modernist sculpture; modernist sculpture seeks that experience, whereas minimalist sculpture simply just focuses on its components.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I’m confused when Fried refers to ‘theater’. In his essay Fried states, “For theater has an audience—it exists for one—in a way the other arts do not; in fact, this more than anything else is what modernist sensibility finds intolerable in theater generally” (563). The fact that theater has an audience relates to how Fried views Minimal Art as seeking to exist in time and space. Like theater, Minimal Art exists for someone else, and such dependence existence further stamps the artworks in space and time. Fried further refers to Tony Smith’s experience through the turnpike as theater stating, “there was, [Smith] seems to have felt, no way to ‘frame’ his experience on the road, no way to make sense of it in terms of art, to make art of it, at least as art then was. Rather, ‘you just have to experience it’ as it happens, as it merely is” (561). The theater aspect of Smith’s drive through the turnpike derives from the fact that one could only experience it in that particular time and space. The experience of the turnpike existed solely for Smith and his company; without them, such an experience would not exist.
What I don’t quite understand is how dependence for existence in artworks cannot be viewed as art. I had always thought that the value and significance that viewers exchange and put into a work of art is what give that work life; but such exchanges denote dependent existence. So why can’t art depend on viewers for existence? Perhaps I just don’t understand Fried’s opinion…
In the essay “Art and Objecthood” by Michael Fried he offers a unique criticism of both modernist art and literalism. Fried’s foremost appreciation for literalist art is rooted in its theatrical quality. Fried defines theatre as “the negation of art” (Fried 153). Fried explains this by creating a dichotomy between modernism and literalism. While modernist paintings and sculptures have the entirety of their meaning rooted in what is contained in the moment and frame of the work of art, literalism is concerned with the circumstance of the viewing. Literalism gains a theatrical quality by insisting that the entirety of a specific circumstance is considered. Therefore, literalist art includes the viewer in the situation of the art. As Fried explains, literalist art is the “better new work” because it “takes relationships out of the work and makes them a function of space, light, and the viewer’s field of vision.” Fried highlights this as a success of literalism because it makes the viewer more aware of himself, something that modernism, fully contained by the work itself, cannot do.
ReplyDeleteFried offers one possible method by which literalist art has the ability to shift the focus away from object and to the presence of a situation. Fried explains that shift is made possible in literalist art by the creation of a presence, manifested in anthropomorphism. Literalist artists use a variety of techniques that made their art seem almost human-like. Morris commented on Smith’s six-foot tall sculpture, that he made it six feet tall so that it would not loom over viewers like a monument, nor be looked down on by viewers as would an object. Thus, viewers can infer that because of the careful consideration for the six-foot tall size of his work, that Smith was creating some sort of surrogate person. Smith gave a human-like quality to his literalist art. One of Morris’s works demonstrates a similar quality of anthropomorphism or humanness. From the cracks of Morris’s works shines a fluorescent light, perhaps symbolizing an inner spirit. It is these human-like qualities that Fried identifies as the presence of a work. When a work can somewhat convince viewers that it has a sense of life, that it contains anthropomorphic qualities, it contains a presence according to Fried. This presence is what elevates the quality of literalist art above that of modernist sculpture and painting.
Fried also praises the timeless quality of literalist art. Fried offers the explanation of said timelessness by saying that in literalist art “the materials do not represent, signify, or allude to anything; they are what they are and nothing more.” (Fried 165) Fried brings readers to understand that because literalist art focuses on the viewing situation, and not on qualities contained within the frame of the work, its experience can continue beyond time. Where modernist painting and sculpture are confined to the relationship it has to other works, Fried notes that literalist painting, because it is has presence as well as theatricality, can persist on experience alone.
Michael Fried’s “Art and Objecthood” is a very dense article that I had trouble understanding. From my interpretation, Fried begins by saying that literalist art attempts to situate itself in the region between modernist painting and modernist sculpture. The identification of one’s work varies from each individual artist; Donald Judd, for example, “seems to think of what he calls Specific Objects as something other than sculpture, while Robert Morris conceives of his own unmistakably literalist work as resuming the lapsed tradition of Constructivist sculpture” (557). One of the major concerns Judd and Morris have about their works of art is the shape of the three-dimensional figure: “The shape is the object: at any rate, what secures the wholeness of the object is the singleness of the shape” (557). Literalist art is concerned with the wholeness of an object, that it is a “single ‘Specific Object’” (557) and that it is not made of parts or separate elements that exist apart from the object.
ReplyDeleteFried continues the discussion of space by comparing modernist art with the literalist art. Modernist paintings are clear in what they want to project – to go beyond the illusion of the object and to be seen flat, more pictorially. For Fried, literalist art is ambiguous and wanders in between object and painting because its goal is to explore the shape of objects. He says, “the demands of art and the conditions of objecthood are in direct conflict” (558), explaining that this is because literalist art’s attitude toward objecthood is just “nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art” (558). The theatricality of literalist art is difficult for me to understand based on the arguments Fried makes on the utilization of space and size and the relationship they have to the viewer. In previous art, the essence of the artwork was located within the work itself, but minimalist art was earlier described as “hollow” and is more on a larger scale, having the object in a situation that includes the viewer. Fried argues that the size of the work of art forces the viewer to not only physically distance himself/herself from the work, but it also psychically distances the viewer as well. “It is, one might say, precisely this distancing that makes the beholder a subject and the piece in question an object” (559). I am not sure how the physical and psychic distancing incorporates the viewer into the piece. In any case, the viewer is part of the entire situation, and yet Fried says, “for something to be perceived at all is for it to be perceived as part of that situation” (559). The phrase “part of the situation” struck me because Fried earlier writes that literalist art pushes itself to be seen as a whole, not as built part-by-part.
Fried says, “what is wrong with literalist work is not that it is anthropomorphic but that the meaning and, equally, the hiddenness of its anthropomorphism are incurably theatrical” (560); that is, literalist art in essence is theatrical because it concerns itself with the situation in which the viewer experiences the literalist work, and thus the meaning of the work itself is theatrical. Modernist painting, in contrast, “defeat or suspend theater” (562). I am not sure how modernist painting does this, just as I am not sure what theater Fried discusses about.
Michael Fried offers a critique of Minimalist, or literalist, art in his essay “Art and Objecthood” by comparing the faults of literalism with the virtues of modernism. He starts by saying that Minimal art is “ideological” and attempts to define its subject in terms of the whole, rather than by its separate parts. Fried states that literalists ‘are opposed to sculpture that, like most painting, is “made part by part, by addition, composed” and in which “specific elements… separate from the whole, thus setting up relationships within the work.”’ Minimalist sculptor, Donald Judd, calls the “part by part” characteristic of sculpture that literalism rejects “anthropomorphic,” but Fried claims that literalist sculpture actually is anthropomorphic. This is because these “whole” subjects have a hollow appearance that make them seem as if they have a hidden inside to them. They do, in fact, display “a kind of latent or hidden naturalism, indeed anthropomorphism” and this lies at the heart of literalist theory.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Fried says that this denial of anthropomorphism is not the problem with literalist sculpture, but rather that this hidden quality of the “part by part” is “incurably theatrical.” Fried uses Tony Smith’s account of a car ride through an unfinished New Jersey turnpike as an example to criticize theater, or the stage presence, of literalist art. Smith said that he could not name or categorize his drive, “you just had to experience it.” Fried points out that while the turnpike belongs to no one in particular, the experience Smith has on that drive belongs only to him. Smith becomes the subject and establishes the experience itself as something like that of an object, or rather, of objecthood. Fried believes this theatricality of objecthood, as shown through Smith’s literalist perspective when describing the drive through the turnpike, is hostile and at war with the pictorial of modernist painting. He praises modernist painting for making its pictorial explicit by defeating its own objecthood through the medium of shape. Additionally, literalist art, like theater, possesses an audience. When a viewer beholds a literalist artwork, he or she is confronted by an experience where the artwork exists for him or her alone. Fried criticizes this experience because “literalist work depends on the beholder, it is incomplete without him, it has been waiting for him.”
Fried’s final point is that the experience evident in Minimalist art “persists in time.” It carries with it a sense of timelessness and Fried states, “The literalist preoccupation with time – more precisely, with the duration of the experience – is paradigmatically theatrical, as though theater confronts the beholder, and thereby isolates him, with the endlessness not just of objecthood but of time.” Modernist sculpture does the exact opposite because the artwork has no duration; “at every moment the work itself is wholly manifest.” At every moment the existence of the artwork ceases and at every moment its existence is renewed. Fried claims that because of this “presentness” and feeling of instantaneity in modernist works, that modernist sculpture and painting are able to defeat theater and display their superiority to literalist, or Minimalist, art.
Mark Kohn
ReplyDelete04/08/09
When discussing Minimalist sculpture, or how Michael Fried terms it, literalist art, Fried uses modernist sculpture as a reference point. Fried argues that literalist art is an autonomous art that has its foundations in modernist art. When evaluating painting from a literalist perspective, Fried argues that the artistic practice of painting is flawed because painting necessarily involves representational illusion and is constructed in a fragmented manner that detracts from the overall unity of the artwork. Fried elaborates on this sentiment when he says, “The literalist case against painting rests mainly on two counts: the relational character of almost all painting and the ubiquitousness, indeed virtual inescapability, of pictorial illusion.” (556) Here, Fried is examining how the medium of painting has been met critically by literalist ideology because of the inherent need to “fool” the viewer with illusionistic representations. With regard to sculpture, the literalists are opposed to sculpture that is fragmented and lacks unity. Conversely, the literalists are in favor of sculpture that is integrated into a complex whole that is resistant to division. Fried uses Judd and Morris as archetypal literalists and provides comprehensive analysis of a literalist view on sculpture when he states, “Above all they are opposed to sculpture that, like most painting, is ‘made part by part, by addition, composed’ and in which ‘specific elements…separate from the whole, thus setting up relationships within the work…Against such ‘multipart, inflected’ sculpture Judd and Morris assert the values of wholeness, singleness, and indivisibility—of a work’s being, as nearly as possible, ‘one thing,’ a single ‘Specific Object’.” (557) Here, Fried reiterates how literalists like Judd and Morris strive to create a unified sculpture that is characterized by a singular nature instead of fragmentation. Much of the conflict between modernist and literalist artwork centers on the notion of “shape” and its relation to “object”. It can be argued that the plainness of shape adds to the unity of objects in the sense that the more a shape is reduced and simplified, the easier it becomes to associate that shape with a specific object. Fried comments on this by writing, “The shape is the object: at any rate, what secures the wholeness of the object is the singleness of the shape.” (557) From a modernist perspective, objecthood is something that should be represented pictorially, such as an illusion, instead of explicitly as a specific shape. Literalist art, however, strives to maintain its objecthood and rejects any attempt to portray itself as an illusionistic representation. In examining these contrasting approaches to objecthood Fried states, “…modernist painting has come to find it imperative that it defeat or suspend its own objecthood, and that the crucial factor in this undertaking is shape, but shape that must belong to painting—it must be pictorial, not, or not merely, literal. Whereas literalist art…aspires not to defeat or suspend its own objecthood, but on the contrary to discover and project objecthood as such.” (557) Additionally, modernist and literalist art differ on how they intend their viewers to experience their respective works. Modernist art seeks to have its viewers perceive itself within a pictorial framework whereas literalist art seeks to engage viewers in a theatrical sense. Fried terms this conflict as a “war” and elaborates on it when he writes, “…there is a war going on between theater and modernist painting, between the theatrical and the pictorial—a war that despite the literalists’ explicit rejection of modernist painting and sculpture, is not basically a matter of program and ideology but of experience, conviction, sensibility.” (562) Here, Fried is highlighting how the main conflict between modernist and literalist art centers on how the art is experienced or felt by the viewer, not necessarily the ideological practices behind the art.
Michael Fried’s article on “Art and Objecthood” was persistently difficult to comprehend. While I have my own interpretations of what the authors statements are inferring I am not entirely convinced that they are accurate. In my opinion Fried is certain that minimalists are too focused on creating literal objects and shapes. Meaning that accurate form has overwhelmed the artists and in return a lack of creativity and imagination has occurred. Fried also argues that minimalist artists focus their art on audience perception. He says that literal artists work to surprise and appease the wishes of the masses rather than their own creative minds. Fried notes that “literal sensibility is theatrical because to begin with it is concern with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work” (558). Meaning that the artists seek to create a response rather than using the artist process as a means for emotional output. This makes the artwork less personal and more of a public experience rather than private. Fried discusses this when he says that this “distances the beholder- not just physically but psychically. It is one might say precisely this distancing that makes the beholder a subject and a piece in question… an object” (559). Because the artist has so intently taken the viewers response into such consideration the viewer has now become as much an object within the artwork as the artwork itself. To Fried literalist sculpture is less comprehensive is focuses more on shape and form and the meaning behind the given work of art is more difficult to find the meaning from. However modernist art generally allows for a more immediate understanding of importance.
ReplyDeleteFried terms “part by part” when describing how “most painting is made part by part, composed, in which specific elements… separate from the whole, thus setting up relationship within the work” (557). This describes how individual details within a work of art make up a unitary picture. Fried notes how minimalist artists lack this part-by-part method and instead focus only on the creation of a single part, shape or form. The word theater is used by Fried to allude to the “negation of art” (559). He says literalist art has a “kind of stage presence” that has a kind of “aggressiveness” to it (559). He tries to explain the public approach that minimalists acquire, because people can relate to simple shape more easily than to intricate sculptures they feel more interconnected to the artwork. Thus the artwork is capable of making public relationship with may people, rather than just expressing the artist own emotional responses. Fried evaluates Tony Smith’s unfinished turnpike as being a testament of theater’s relationship within art. As Smith describes his experience as being an object he establishes his own personal relationship to this “object” that he finds to be unique and individual of others experiences. The term presentness amounts to art as the “perpetual creation of itself” meaning the ability for art to express itself instantaneously. In minimalist art a shape such a cube can be instantaneously experienced and understood, a more abstract figure would have less presentness because is would not be able to be understood as quickly.
Michael Fried’s essay “Art and Objecthood” is almost impossible for me to understand, so this response may not be as correct or in depth as it should be. One critique of minimalist sculpture that I see Fried making is that the sculpture should attempt to exist in time and space. Near the beginning of the essay, he says minimalist sculpture “seeks to declare and occupy a position - one that can be formulated in words and in fact has been so formulated by some of its leading practices.” (556) The sculpture attempts to occupy a space which emphasizes its attempt to exist in a certain point in time also. Fried defining minimalist sculpture as such is a break from the norm in modernist sculpture, which generally tries to give an entire experience. Fried writes, “Everything counts, not as part of the object, but as part of the situation in which its objecthood is established and on which that objecthood at least partly depends.” (559) When looking at a sculpture, your experience shouldn’t totally rely on the actual object of the sculpture; instead, the entire sensation of looking at the sculpture is part of the work. Modernists works of a similar time period do include their surroundings/situation but minimalist sculptures only highlight the objects of the sculpture. Modernist sculpture seeks an experience, whereas minimalist pieces simply try to focus on their components.
ReplyDeleteTo be totally honest, that could all be an incorrect interpretation or reading of Fried, but hopefully some of it is worthwhile. Getting to the terms, I’m not sure I’m any clearer on their meaning, but here we go. When Fried talks about ‘theater’ I’m not fully sure what he means. He says, “For theater has an audience - it exists for one - in a way the other arts do not; in fact, this more than anything else is what modernist sensibility finds intolerable in theater generally.” (563) I understand the opening part of the quote, a theater intuitively has an audience and spectators, but the latter half confuses me. The fact that the theater has spectators relates back to how Fried views minimal art as seeking to exist in time and space. Similar to the art of theater, minimal art exists for someone else, and such a dependent existence further concretes the artwork in space and time. Referring to Tony Smith and the turnpike, an excerpt from the essay Friend says, “[there was] no way to ‘frame’ his experience, on the road, no way to make sense of it in terms of art, to make art of it, at least as art was then.” (561) Smith’s drive through the turnpike is theatrical in the sense that is derives from the fact that one could only experience it in that moment (a particular space and time.) I’m not very clear on other terms and facts Fried addresses in his essay at other points, and I was a little unclear on on his reasoning behind the idea that art can’t rely on people to exist… It seems to make sense to me but perhaps I was reading it wrong and that wasn’t what he was saying.
I am most interested in Fried’s definition and exploration of the term “theater” and “theatricality” that he claims is inherent to minimalist art. I believe that his diction in describing the “war” between theater and art a bit overly dramatic although rather humorous. Fried claims that theater is “the negation of art” (558). He makes this claim because he defines theater as a personal, unique experience of the individual while interacting with any form of art, including minimalist sculpture. Fried points out that the minimalist claim and mission to root their sculptures to a certain time is self-defeating since each audience or viewer who interacts with (or rather is isolated by) the minimalist sculpture automatically changes the time and experience of that sculpture. The “beholder” is rooted in that “situation” by experiencing the “stage presence” of the sculpture (559) so the experience is unique to the viewer interacting firsthand with the sculpture. Even then, Fried critiques the situation since he feels they are “abandoned” and “empty” (561). This correlates with his scorn for the starkness and plainness of minimalist sculpture since this medium showcases objects and materials as “what they are and nothing more” (564). I was amazed and amused by Fried’s bold critique, or perhaps more like ragging, of minimalist art since “Literalist work is often condemned-when it is condemned-for being boring. A tougher charge would be that it is merely interesting” (564). He points out that the characteristic of being “interesting” is not universal, but only relevant to the artist’s personal experience. Fried challenges the minimalist concern with the endless interest in an objects specific material and shape by redefining the “endlessness” experience as more of an unending pain. Or perhaps that is just me reading between the lines. What Fried does concretely connect is endlessness and a “duration of the experience”. This section was rather abstract so my interpretation/understanding of Fried’s discussion is that Fried criticizes the Minimalist’s goal to have the sculpture exist outside of time but the sculpture only exists for the interval of a viewer’s interaction. He contrasts this with modernist art by toasting to the instantaneousness of the painting or sculpture. I imagine Fried would like the spontaneity in Pollock’s paintings and the immediate evoked feelings of audiences by experiencing abstract expressionist paintings such as those in the Rothko Chapel. I wonder what is Fried’s opinion on Duchamp’s Fountain or other readymade art sculptures.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay “Art and Objecthood” by Michael Fried, minimalist art is portrayed as an irrational art form that attempts to be as precise as possible. According to Fried minimalist art, or better described as literalist, focuses on portraying the “shape” accurately as a means of presenting truth in art. However, Fried argues that this “realness” achieved by the minimalists is instead over theatrical and a failure of modern art. The theatricality of the art works actually take away from the art works purpose, proposing an unnerving and uninteresting work of art.
ReplyDeleteThe term theatricality in relation to minimalist art refers to the grandiosity of the art work as well as the dependency of an audience. Minimalist art can not succeed with out an audience to participate in the type of show that the artists are presenting. The overly large paintings practically engulf the viewer with their size and simplicity, therefore the act of viewing these works becomes more like a show rather than an intellectual encounter with a painting. This is not to say that all large paintings attempt the same type of theatricality as do the minimalist paintings, instead the simplicity of these paintings further forces the viewer to merely view the painting and not interpret or comprehend, like a mindless witnessing of a play. To Fried this fact weakens the effectiveness of minimalist art. He states that, “The success, even the survival, of the arts has come increasingly to defend on their ability to defeat theaters...For theater has an audience-it exists for one- on a way the other arts do not; in fact, this more than anything else is what modernist sensibility finds intolerable in theater generally.” (563) Clearly, art is in opposition to theater, they serve different purposes. Modern art has achieved this separation by opening the fine arts, such as painting and sculpture, to a broad range of interpretation. Every experience with a modern art work can be different, but at the same time produce specific messages to the viewer, something which can not be achieved by a scripted play.
Another aspect of minimalist art is the fact they present what Fried calls, endlessness. The paintings and sculpture rely so much on repetition and simplification that they withdraw any sense of instantaneousness, and instead produce an endless succession of art. Fried explains that minimalist art “is inexhaustible, however, not because of any of fullness-that is the inexhaustibility of art- but because there is nothing there to exhaust. The art is endless the way a road might be, if it were circular, for example.” Basically, minimalist achieve nothing but redundancy in an uninteresting way. It does not represent a ever changing infinity, but a repetitive continuum. Although, Fried does not consider Minimalist art a successful subset of Modern art, he respects its achievement. Minimalist art may not have produced a great interest as did the cubist movement per say, but it still holds its place as an avant-garde continuation of modern art.
Fried’s essay has multiple levels of complexity, but one evident claim is in the idea of interpretation and experience of art. This idea highlights the differences between minimalism and modernism, and through that emphasis shows what Fried prefers. The difference begins with the basic difference between minimalist and modernist.
ReplyDeleteAny description of modernist includes an important idea that is throughout the modernist movement, how the viewer experiences the paintings or works of art. Fried explains how modernist paintings are experiences either “as paintings or as objects,” which leads to an important difference between modernism and minimalism. Modernism is designed around something more than just the shapes, or objects, that are portrayed. A great example of this is Jackson Pollock, even though he was not in the heart of the modernist movement. If Pollock’s paining was taken literally, it would only be a series of paint streaks, and any viewer would be discouraged from trying to find deeper meaning. The fact that those paint streaks can represent an idea, like emotion, leads to the difference between a painting and an object.
As Fried states, minimalist paintings are “literalist art,” where the whole goal is to only present objects as themselves, not encouraging further interpretation leading to a possible deeper meaning. The idea of just representing something as an object diverts from the idea of artwork as commonly accepted. Artwork is designed to be interrelated, but when its goal is to be literal, it defeats that purpose. Fried prefers art that is aimed at not simply representing objects, but rather includes hidden meanings and things that can be interpreted.
In his piece “Art and Objecthood,” Michael Fried critiques minimalist artwork, which he refers to as literalist, while at the same time explaining why he believes modern artwork is better. Fried begins by talking about shape and how artists need to stop restricting themselves through the use of single dimensions, such as painting, and should instead switch to three-dimensional sculptures, which allow more freedom. Fried claims, “Actual space is intrinsically more powerful and specific than paint on a flat surface.” The author is stating that sculptures have the ability to create an impact/presence on the viewing, which can allow for more depth in the interpretation of the work of art. According the Fried, shape is the most important part in making sure the work of art is complete. “Part-by-part” means that an object is put together in an orderly, systematic way. The shapes being used must fit into the preexisting ideas involving those shapes. Fried would argue that in order for a painting to be seen as a painting, and not as an object, it must keep its shape. However, literalist artists don’t try to express their artwork as paintings, but rather as objects. Their shapes solely represent objects, which Fried calls “objecthood” or non-art. Objecthood is artwork that aspires only to represent objects, not a painting or a sculpture. Why do literalists want to produce works of art seen only as objects? The author explains that literalists are trying to create a “new genre of theater.” In other words, minimalists are trying to find a new method of rebellion against the preexisting ideas surrounding art and its definition. For example, in a modernist painting, the experience felt by the viewer comes from the painting alone; no extra information is needed. On the other hand, in a literalist work of art, in order to understand the painting, the viewer must understand the object, including its cultural and social meanings. In a modern work of art, the mixture of materials used is seen as a composition rather than as individual objects pieced together. Literalists take a well-known object and put it in a new light or scale in order to get different reactions. Scale is an important factor for making a literalist artwork successful. The large-scaled object creates distance between the viewer and the work of art. Rather than bringing in the viewer to speculate and perhaps create a personal connection, the object is blunt and forceful. “But the things that are literalists works of art must somehow confront the beholder- they must, one might almost say, be placed not just in his space but in his way.” Objects must have a large enough presence to attract the attention of the viewer. In fact, the objects are readily comparable to the size of a human body. Furthermore, literalist artwork, in a way, takes on human-like qualities. The object has mysterious and intriguing qualities, as if something is hiding behind the hollow materials. Objects like the turnpike belong to no one, but when confronted with them, as Smith was, they become a part of you as you experience them. Like the objects used in literalist artwork, one becomes connected as they experience the object. Literalist artwork has the power to make the viewer feel has though he is experiencing the artwork alone, despite the fact that there may be other people in the room. At the same time, literalist artists want their work to be “something everyone can understand.” I think one of the greatest distinctions between modern and literal artwork is what each artist hopes to achieve. While modern artists plan on making a statement, point, or comparison to past works, literalist artists just want their work of art to be interesting. Furthermore, minimalists argue that their materials hold no symbolism or meaning. Instead of having a satisfying experience while looking at a work of art, literalists want their work of art to create a sense of endlessness. Ultimately, Fried claims that because modern artists have the ability to create a sense of complete and wholeness in their work of art, modern artwork is superior to literalist artwork.
ReplyDeleteVictor Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Minimalism
According to Michael Fried’s definition, Minimalist Art is a portrayal of space, singleness, wholeness, indivisibility, and presence. When one takes into account a Minimalist sculpture such as Judd’s “Untitled” work at the SFMOMA, the primary structure elements of the art movement are visible. That is, one can see that the sculpture is whole and indivisible because it is composed of seemingly indivisible shapes—boxes. Fried finds that these elements reduce (as its minimalist artists intended) the internal relationship associated with part-by-part construction of sculpture. In other words, reductionism takes away too much from art and renders it non-art or objecthood.
Minimalist artist believed that shape was the most important element of the movement namely because shapes, such as cube and polyhedrons “resist” being associated with anything else other than what it is—a polyhedron. For example, a cube is a cube. It is a three-dimensional shape that takes up space. In this example the part-by-part tradition of sculpture is refuted. One cannot readily see the “parts” of a cube, given that its sides are repetitious and uniform. Precisely because one cannot identify a cube’s parts, one cannot decipher any associations or internal relationships within the sculpture. If a relationship exists, through the anthropomorphizing of objecthood, the result is theatrical.
In the term theatrical, one can imagine a performance stage. Although the analogy of the theater is still elusive to me, I think Fried was trying to say that minimalist sculpture—due to its placement within the realm of high art—does create internal relationships. Although this might be true, he argues that objecthood or non-art produces a theatrical internal relationship. Namely, this theatrical relationship comes about with the contradictory nature of the movement and with the fact that the shape and size of these sculptures emanates some sort of “stage presence.” Much like a performer has stage presence, minimalist art can be seen as a performance—a performance directed by the sheer magnitude of a sculpture’s size and shape.
This idea of stage presence and theater reminds me of the intimacy that Fried discusses relative to a sculpture’s decreasing size. According to minimalist theory, the smaller the size of an object, the more intimate it becomes. Likewise, larger objects are linked with “publicness.” Since theater has to do with the public, does this mean that minimalist art is public regardless of size? Although I do not have the answer to my own question, I affirm that questions like these speak of the complicated nature of literalist art. In other words, singleness, as simple in concept as it may sound, can never actually be singular because it is tied with an array of definable and indefinable associations.
Fried’s essay was difficult to completely grasp, however he talks about how minimalism is related to that of objecthood and the “condition of non-art”.
ReplyDeleteHe talks about the idea of awareness with art, and how the audience should feel connected to both the art as well as the artist. We have to be aware of our presence within the art, eventually determining whether or not the piece of art is successful at conveying its message. He feels as though the art is portrayed in a better way through “the strength of the constant, known shape, the gestalt”. Awareness is heightened through the unknown within a picture-points of view are constantly changing and being compared. The comparisons and the questions that arise enhance the work of art adding meaning and significance behind the work. He also incorporates the idea of the person being incorporated into the work of art. “He wants to achieve awareness through objecthood”, meaning he wants the audience to be incorporated into the artwork rather than being distanced from the meaning.
He also discusses the idea of literalist art relating to the idea the artwork being a sort of stage presence. The objects within the picture are telling a story, and have a certain meaning that incorporates the audience into the story. He states that “the object, not the beholder, must remain the center or focus of the situation, but the situation itself belongs to the beholder--it is his situation”, he wants the audience to take control of what is being interpreted yet he does not want the objects within the artwork to lose the main focus. The main object has many options as to what it can be viewed, yet the audience controls what they want to see without losing sight of the main idea and or focus, the object, within the artwork.
LAST READING RESPONSE
ReplyDeleteElisabeth Sevy
4/8/09
In Fried’s dense and difficult reading, he discusses how “literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work.” (153) Literalist art is concerned with the viewer’s situation. And in this situation, the beholder is included. It is not just about the object, it is about the viewer. The object still “must remain the center…of the situation, but the situation itself belongs to the beholder—it is his situation.” (154) In this situation, Fried stresses that the object but make the beholder affected. It is not just in the beholder’s space, but it is in the beholder’s way. Everything is involved in the situation, not necessarily included as the object, but affects the beholder’s situation. In this way, literalist art is seen as a theatrical situation because there is an experience being had.
Another point that Fried makes is centered around unity in art. Literalists have a hard time accepting art that is pieced together. The lack of togetherness and the piecing makes them very critical. Also, he discusses the significance of the size and thus the distance that the beholder must situate themselves in relation to it. “The larger the object, the more we are forced to keep our distance from it” (152) The object must be large enough for the viewer to be forced to experience it, yet it can’t be so large that it overwhelms the viewer and “becomes the loaded term.” (154)
Early on in his essay, Michael Fried makes quite clear how he feels about minimalist sculpture: “the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art”. What he exactly means by this statement, however, is not so clear, and we have to trace the meanings of his terms as used through his essay to find out.
ReplyDeleteAs Fried notes at the beginning, minimalist art (or literalist art, as he calls it) defines itself in relation to modernist painting and sculpture, criticizing their “part-by-part” nature and the use of illusionism. Minimalist artists moved away from painting due to their inherent pictoral illusion and the presence of many small parts within the “vague whole” of a rectangular canvas. Donald Judd and other artists considered minimalist also criticized modernist sculpture for how they are composed from smaller pieces separate from the whole, creating relationships between them within the work. In particular, Judd characterized this multi-partness and relativity as “anthropomorphism”. Fried also notes Clement Greenberg’s discussion of “presence”, through appearing as “non-art” or what Fried calls “objecthood”. Critics often associate minimalist works with this concept objecthood, the appearance of non-art, rather than modernist paintings or sculptures in contrast considered not an “object” in a fundamental sense.
These characteristics of minimalist art is what Fried calls “theater”. First, minimalists consider not only the content of the artwork itself, but the viewer’s relation and reaction to it. Fried therefore considers minimalist art situational, and inherently theatrical. Additionally, minimalist works often are in large scale, enlarging the space between the work and the viewer and forcing physical engagement and participation for viewing the work. Minimalist works “confront the viewer”, and “[e]verything counts” (i.e. the situation in which the artwork is placed) for endowing the work with objecthood. However, the presence of minimalist art prevented them from being too big. In fact, Fried argues that minimalist art is anthropomorphic, that it has the presence of the person, as supported by how many such works are approximately human size, and serve like surrogates of statues. They also tend to have an “inside”, a hollow space that “is almost blatantly anthropomorphic.” He says that this characteristic basically is a “theatrical effect or quality”, a “stage presence”.
Later on, Fried describes theater and theatricality as “at war” with not just modernist painting, but art in general. He says that modernist art lacks, and in fact finds intolerable, an audience, which minimalist art has in the form of the beholder and the situation in relation to the work of art. He additionally denigrates theater as a degeneration of art, as a common denominator that “binds together a large and seemingly disparate variety of activities”, and calls theater as lying “between the arts”.