Minimalize This

A fine review of the bicoastal LA|MoCA and NYC|Gugg minimalism retrospectives, by Peter Schjeldahl. Schjeldahl politely introduces the borders of that which is being retrospected (Are Malevich and Mondrian given the nod? Ad Reinhardt? Ellsworth Kelly?) and notes the distinct differences between the coasts, at least as far as these shows are concerned. Just briefly he wanders into the post-min world (topic of my future studies) of Richard Serra, Bruce Nauman, Gerhard Richter, and Sol LeWitt; Schjeldahl even deigns a distracted glance at poor, minimalist-exhibit-less DC, noting that we host the seminal min contribution to American civ: The Vietnam War Memorial. Chalk up another unsatisfying mark for the District. (He also coyly whispers that Maya Lin owes Richard Serra an eternal debt.)

I take exception to his rather common observations of minimalism being cold, academic, clinical. Sigh, we know all that. And he kind of says that minimalism is appropriately empty for a secular society, and we know all that too—as if we needed art to make us feel guiltier. But these days I'm more and more convinced that the contributions of American minimalism amount to a thorough revision of art and artistic strategy, much as three-point perspective altered art, midwived the Renaissance, made Italy wonderful, etc.

To make the broadest (worst) argument for minimalism that I can, I'd say a piece is successfully minimal to the extent that it needs you. Very generally, minimalist art tends toward the zero-sum: The more reductive the piece is, the less evident the hand of the author becomes, the more it requires you to recognize (its formula, strategy, whatever). Picasso, Warhol, Pollock, whoever you want to look at before minimalism, you're certainly invited to witness the conversation but you're not crucial to its success. Participation would be one way to define it but it's more or less forced incorporation of the viewer into the art.

More on this later, once I've started and finished graduate school.