so i haven't even able to the find concept in Minimalism art, i dont how to intepret it..honestly i think its real banal,but maybe i'm being to narrowminded? thats what i thought of dada at first,until i studied both paintings,colleges and read about it,the key factor in the dada art genre was a defiance of art! of what art trully was? when one thinks of painting one mostly things of romantic time paintings of landscapes or anything by van gough(sic?),the beauty in this was that the dada artist didn't take themself to serious! which i enjoy. or should approach Minimalism with same appeal as i did to pop art, to the same nihilisitic and less pretentious modern art? or should i approach it as i did with surrealism,or the thinking'person's art? im i thinking to much about this?..i need help art people..pardon if i sound desperate or as if this was a journal entry..just thought that ran past me in the art class.

sign...el senor de la weepingwall

p.s. WEEE!

Giacommetti (sp?)

Wasn't he minimalist?

It's form stripped down to the absolute necessity. No flourishes.

On the Org, think of Zelaira as an anti-minimalist.

A minimalist would be like Bart Van Hemelen. Everything stripped down to "fact" or "not-fact." No socializing, no dillydallying.



sausageplatter comes in a far second as a minimalist.

Here's the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

2the9s said:

And your posts are kind of the lowest common denominator of mediocrity.

Imago777 said:

Your posts are considered maximalist.

Like Gluteus Maximalist.

2the9s said:

I wish your account was considered Nihlist.

Imago777 said:

Yours is impressionist.

It gives me the impression of an idiot.

2the9s said:

9s is the Damien Hurst of the org. His threads seem bold and original but then you remind yourself they're just, um... vivisectioned cows suspended in formaldehyde.






I haven't got the hang of this have I?

FauxieToo said:

You're a little too Rococo for us.

2the9s said:

And your face looks distinctly cubist.

Eww...

FauxieToo said:

thank you for the feedback,correct me if im wrong but from what i understood its basically a stripped down media in which the details lay in the both order and simplicity,with that said its genre not to be taken to the heart? or in minimalist words not to be taken serious? none the less its still "art".

weepingwall said:

This low brow stuff doesnt belong on the org!

There is extream beauty in simplisity.

bkw said:

what now?

Anyone fancy a shag?

This may sound very old-fashioned but I won't give up the notion that I have to find pieces of art beautiful in order to like them.

'Beautiful' is not the same as sunshine, flowers and a blue sea. 'Beauty' may be about broken bones, raw emotion, chaos.

Next to that, I can appreciate certain piece of art for what they stood for in history. They were inevitable and belong to our culture. But this appreciation can't force me to like them, in an esthetical/emotional way that is.

I don't know if this is clear. I would never hang a dadaist painting (and the majority of minimalist art) on my wall, unless I think it's beautiful, unless it speaks to my heart, can be felt in my legs and belly, makes me weak, astounds me...

So I would say 'Don't force yourself to like certain piece of art.' Liking something is not rational. Understanding and appreciating something on the other hand, is a very rational process, for which you need a certain level of knowledge and open mindedness.

When dealing with art, feel. Dont think.

dreamfactory313 said:

Bullshit. Good art stimulates both your mind and your heart.

Anyway, I think in the beginning minimalism was indeed a way of rebelling against the traditional view of what art should be, but since rebelling is such a common thing in the art community (almost more common than not rebelling!) it quickly became old and now minimalism is just a liberatingly clean and straightforward use of form at best, and a way of hiding an inability to fuse together different visual elements at worst.

weepingwall said:

Appreciate it the way you would any object, if it was in an art gallery or not, and view it for it's aesthetics alone. what do you like about it for what it is etc?

imo.

LleeLlee said:

When it comes to minimalism I think that is a good approach, because there usually isn't much more to it than pure aesthetics. This, thankfully, doesn't apply to all art though.

retina said:

I guess my statement was so sparse of detail that it didnt make much sense at all. I mean that when approaching minimalist art, weepingwall should ask himself how he feels about it before he tries to disect what the artist's purpose was. I think thats how art should be appreciated. I ask myself how I feel about it before I "peek behind the curtain" so to speak. Sometimes people tend to intellectualize and disect things too much. Sometimes things arejust because they are. There is no rhyme or reason. It just is what it is. Some art is there to tell us more about ourselves than about the artist.

dreamfactory313 said:

Okay, we mostly agree then.

Number23 said:

Minimalism is my favorite period of art. Especially minimalist art from the 60s. And I find it extremely beautiful. I have seen a few exhibits from this period at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Walker Art Museum in Minneapolis which I found absolutely breathtaking. I don't know why, it's just my thing.

I see minimalist art often more of a curatorial art in the way the pieces are arranged and assembled together. For when several pieces are placed together in a gallery, I find it very stimulating to look at them together as a whole.

I would say, think of minimalist art in a spiritual sense of an artist reaching the essence. The essence of RED, for instance. Or the essence of ROUND. Or the essence of STRIPE. It's austere. It's pure. It also can be very subtle for some artists who paint off-white against white, for instance.

Also, minimalist art falls within history as a reaction to literal, pictoral art when realism and the idea of depicting something in the real world is dead. Now it's about the medium itself and becomes self-referential Some people find this irrelevant, but I find it pure.

It also falls into the period of time when the painting comes out of the canvas or off the wall. For instance, leaning a painting against a wall or a canvas being sliced with a knife. I love all this stuff. It's my