On her blog, Sarah asked: How does Minimalism continue to thrive without a point, or with a point that's been made many times already?
I do believe that minimalist art does have a point, though it is difficult to see it. When interpreting minimalist art, I think we often make the mistake of assuming that the brevity of a piece is the point. I think minimalism is a mode of communication, rather than a point. The audience has to deeply consider minimalist art before any inkling of a meaning can be reached. In some forms of art, especially visual art, it is very to look at a piece and say simply "That's a bowl of fruit". Seeing the superficial meaning, we neglect to take the effort to find a deeper meaning. We're lazy. Minimalism discards the superficial image, forcing us to think.
How do our societal behaviors (e.g. laziness) influence our art?
No comments:
Post a Comment