These really are very interesting. I hope to see more; don't get me wrong --
but can anything involving text truely be minimal? Isn't it using much MORE
to call upon a symbol, something that has been given a huge amount of
(memetic) meaning? When I think of minimalism, I tend to think of things
that are almost like a whack from a zen master- somethign for which we have
NO programmed response. Text is not elemental enough to invoke that almost
animal experience, of energy, or calm, or black, or division, that a
minimalist painting does so incredibly. I don't know if Barnett Newman
would have called himsef minimalist, but his Stations of the Cross are
possibly the best example I can think of. He takes something so incredibly
symbolized, with so much information attached to it, and strips all that
away.

I can't find any of the Stations online, but check out
http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/00303074.jpg -- "Abraham"
A brilliant example of the least expenditure for an huge impact. Imagine
waking into a room with that painting in it, full size. It seizes the mind,
holds it where nothing but the energy of that central zip moves, in all of
space and time. It is steadfast, and fast, all at the same time. No symbol
could coherently hold all the meaning that painting does, despite the
symbol's inherent complexity.

Or something ;). I'm having trouble typing, so it's probably time to stop.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message