Monday, January 30, 2012

Readings for Thursday

I've emailed some readings to members of the class that were suggested by Veronica Roberts.  Also, check out this interview with Sol LeWitt...


  1. Interesting short readings. It has a familiar feel to it. Sol LeWitt’s description of these drawings sounds like Allan Kaprow’s discussions of his “Happenings”. The element of chance is talked about to make the work feel less planned and more a part of real life. This controlled form of variation also reminds me of the artificial accidental aesthetic beloved in Japanese textiles and ceramics where a situation is set up to encourage an unexpected result. Chance is injected into a tightly constrained concept to break the cycle of monotony and conformity.

  2. I found Sol LeWitt’s writings to be intriguing new forms to rethink elements of his wall drawings. He touched on the different types of connections found within a wall drawing: the indirect communication between the draftsman to the artist and the architect, the direct connection between the draftsman to the drawing instructions and to the wall, and more importantly the draftsman’s relationship with himself. It seems as though there are two forms of art within a single wall drawing: the process art created by the draftsman as he/she approaches the unique circumstances he/she faces. The other form is concept art, Sol LeWitt’s conceptualization of what a wall drawing is, what components are found within it, how people would benefit from it, etc.

    On another note, it reminded me of last week’s readings concerning Damien Hirst and his dot paintings. There are a lot of similarities between the two, but I wonder if Hirsts’ assistants, after creating many paintings, find any type of reward in creating a painting, other than monetary?

  3. I really enjoyed Veronica Robert's lecture on Sol Lewitt. I'm intrigued with the intangible aspect his wall drawings creates. Because his artwork, technically exist as a set of instructions and is only made tangible by the means of a draftsperson. Without the draftsperson to construct the work, it seems the artwork only exist as an idea. With that it really hammers home on the idea of "conceptual art", I think. It questions art in a tangible form. As an object to sell or own, ownership to the wall drawings almost seems silly. It's owning a set of instructions, like one could own a recipe for soup.

    The idea of tomato soup exist, only if there were a cook to make the tomato soup?