stm31415 wrote:


> alive. I woke up at...") So while the first impression is indeed
> minimalist, there is a depth to his work, something beyond "What you see is
> what you see." 

It may be a critique of minimalism, but not how I take it.  I think they 
play very much on a taste for the banal, the minimal, the immediate, 
then discover variety within serialization.  It is very much "cross 
over" work spanning painting, performance, concept, installation even. 
I would certainly categorize it as "conceptual" art before I categorized 
it as "minimalist" painting.  But I think it is painting that is very 
close to Robert Ryman, say.  I think it derives very much from 
minimalism and its time.



Certainly, though, encoding letters into numbers and
> printing the numbers at an angle in a color is stretching the definition of
> minimalism, and while cool looking, I don't think it is very similar to
> Kawara's works.

No, but I was responding in the general case.  The assertion was 
encompassing so I need just one example to disprove it don't I?


> 
> Complexity is not disallowed, 

I would hope not, because it also becomes difficult to define. Sol 
Lewitt's work comes to mind. ie. simple building block, complex result.


but there is a great amount of concern with
> meaning going on around here than the more "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" of
> minimalism. (Yes, I know Magritte was surreal. I'll live)

The problem is that to satisfy the irtc topic you need only address the 
word "minimalism" in some way.  Including putting it in your picture.

Post a reply to this message