Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Minimalism: For Class 3/31
Focus your response on Fried's difficult essay: what does he find wrong with minimalist sculpture (also termed literalism, specific objects, primary structures, ABC art)? What does he prefer about modernist sculpture? Define his terms (part by part, theater, timelessness, presentness, etc.) - what is opposed to what? Why does he critique Tony Smith's description of the unfinished turnpike, for instance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jenny Zhang
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Reading Response 13
One of Michael Fried’s greatest concerns about literalist or minimalist art is the inability to classify it as a work of art or an object. To him, literalist art hovers over being called the “objecthood” or “nonart” (152). Their classification into being an object has to do with the fact that much of minimal art appears to be very simple, requiring little exhausted work to be completed and instead, the literalist work is simply a “function of space, light and the viewer’s field of vision” (Morris). Modern art emphasizes the technique and styles behind an artist’s creation of his work. Furthermore, it is not afraid to show the flatness of painting or more generally the evidence of it having been worked on and created. Literalist art opposes those factors of modern art and is described by Fried as just being present. Most of the material that goes into creating literalist art, such aluminum metal, plexiglass and brass were chosen by artist “specifically” (Judd) for the purpose of creating the art work. And no work is done to modify its properties as modern sculpture is molded into various small objects that are then welded together. Often times, modern sculpture’s surfaces are polishes, as in Brancusi’s sculptures, to emphasize on the three dimensional quality of the material. In his essay, Fried points out that the reason why he is able to appreciate modern sculpture by artists like David Smith and Anthony Caro is because each part of the sculpture has a meaning to the overall art work. The artist has put thought in the relationship between the sculptural components that s/he has created and they are positioned to offer an abstract representation of a subject matter. Overall, he prefers modern sculpture over literalist works because they appear to have undergone a difficult creative process that imposes meaning on the final art work. Fried argues that Literalist art requires minimal work for the artist because the art’s main factor is shape and the other qualities of the art are prepossessed by the materials used. In the end, the literalist work provides a theater effect of having a large and aggressive presence in a room so that the audience is compelled to view and be included by the work since they occupy the same space as the art object. Fried points out that modern art or art in general survival to this day depends on its defeat of the theater. Art is not an object because it does more than share space with the audience, it is personal to creator and must be analyzed in order to be understood. Literalist object simply exists for an audience to view, which is why they are noted for their large size, repetitive pattern of the same unit and are objects instead of art. The components seem to serve no meaning except to provide an artistic effect for an audience.
In his essay, Fried coins many terms in order to describe literalist art: part-by-part, theater, timelessness and presentness. Some of which I had mentioned. Part-by-part as opposed to unitary in respect to modern sculpture and literalist work. Part-by-part relates to the technique of creating a work that is a compilation of many different artistic pieces and unitary is used to describe literalist object which may also be made of different pieces; however, the individual pieces have no meaning or purpose except to serve for aesthetic purposes. Furthermore, this quality of individual pieces in literalist art is supported by the fact that the individual pieces are identical to each other (i.e. in Donald Judd’s Untitled in SFMOMA). Theater is opposed to presentness. Timelessness is opposed to duration. What Fried means is that while modern art and sculpture is timeless because “ at every moment the work itself is wholly manifest” (Fried 167), literalist art is marked by the “duration of the experience “ (167). In other words, Fried is saying that the experience one has with literalist art is just duration of time whereas one’s experience with modern art is marked by understanding of the whole art piece instead of by time.
Fried’s main critique about Tony Smith’s description of the New Jersey turnpike is that since Smith believes that an experience cannot be captured by a two dimensional, he gave up and created a three dimensional object to replace his experience at the turnpike. In turn, his art work is a theater because it exists for audience to be present and to experience. However ultimately, the experience that Smith has transcended onto their literalist work is his personal experience not the raw experience at the turnpike. In that sense, the absolute “natural” experience that minimalist have pursued in their works of art does not really exist.
In the opening of the essay, Fried defines the idea of objecthood. He uses Greenberg's words as a crutch. “... no matter ow simple the object may be, there remain the relations and interrelations... Minimal works are readable as art, as almost anything is today-including a door, a table, or a blank sheet of paper.... Yet it would seem that a kind of art nearer the condition of non-art could not be envisaged or ideated at this moment.” His views toward minimalism seem harsh and bitter, as he uses Greenberg's comparison of minimalist works to such everyday items as doors and tables. Furthermore, he suggests that the “espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art.” Next he introduces an idea the that the viewer of the painting is somehow incorporated into its meaning. With a painting, the observer has but one vantage point, set lighting, and everything else the artist has allowed to show through the canvas. A sculpture, on the other hand, changes as viewpoints changes. It casts different shadows when lighting moves. It responds to the viewer in a way painting never did. For this reason I believe Fried used the term theater for this type of art.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about Michael Fried's “Art and Objecthood” was the lengthy description of the under construction New Jersey Turnpike, written by Tony Smith. Traveling over the road, Smith had a profound experience in which art became clear for him. Talking about painting, Smith says, “I thought to myself, it ought to be clear that's the end of art. Most painting looks pretty pictorial after that. There is no way you can frame it, you just have to experience it.” A sobering thought indeed. Smith announces the end of art from the hills of the turnpike. As the road was deserted, Smith had a unique experience with the surroundings. The scene of art, for Smith at the time, was not the “artificial” landscapes, but rather the experience which was art. He claimed to have seen the end of art because of his connection to ironically enough, natural artificial art.
Because of these experiences, Fried believes “that there is a war going on between theater and modernist painting, between the theatrical and the pictorial.” He adopts a harsh tone toward past paintings and sculptures. He says that they were not simply objects, but he thinks that it is more accurate to say that they simply were not.
He lays down three points in support of his claim that theater is in war with art itself. His first point is that “The success, even the survival, of the arts has come increasingly to depend on their ability to defeat theater”. Strong words. Rhetorically, this sentence both suggests that theater is not in the same realm as art, and thus is the ordinary, and warns of the war to save art against the theater. He says that the work that requires an audience, one that is not complete without one isolates the viewer as the subject and subsequently loses some meaning. His second point is that theater is the lowest form of art, and as art becomes more like theater, it loses its essence and complication that makes art art. The third point is that the concepts of quality and value are fundamentally different between the two forms.
Michael Fried’s biggest problem with minimalist or literalist art is that it “defines or locates the position it aspires to occupy.” Literalist art, according to Fried “conceives of itself as neither one nor the other” (149). The ambiguity of the artwork’s identity is what Fried finds most wrong about this style. This ambiguity stems from the inability to decipher whether a minimalist artwork is the “objecthood” or “nonart” (152). According to Fried, these two categories stem from the “condition of nonart” (152). This condition revolves around the lack of labor that is particular to minimalist artwork. Minimalist artists do not manipulate their materials and mediums but instead create ”theatricality” in order to “achieve presence” (152). Literalist art, in Fried’s view deals a lot more with the audience and the theatricality of artwork.
ReplyDeleteFried likes modern sculptures because they emphasize the third dimension. Unlike modern paintings, which wanted to completely eradicate the third dimension, modern sculptures were often stylized to bring attention to the physical presence of the artwork. Fried likes the third dimension because he believes that it adds meaning to the sculpture in that the artwork confronts the viewer with its presence.
Fried uses terms such as “part by part, theater, timelessness, and presentness” throughout his writings. Part by part refers to the technique of art making. This process includes an assortment of different ideas, pieces, and styles. Timelessness is the opposite of time, continuation or duration.
In the article, Fried criticizes Tony Smith’s description of the unfinished turnpike because he believes that experiences cannot be identified in a two dimensional depiction. He believes that a third dimension should be present in order to do an experience justice. This third dimension according to Fried offers the audience an experience of theatricality which means that the viewer will experience something inexperienced. By sticking simply to a two dimensional depiction, the audience loses this opportunity to transcend the basic meaning of the work of art.
Brendan Cronshaw
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Response 13
4.1.09
Michael Fried does not hold back in his dislike or at least distaste in minimalist or literalist sculpture. He says that “The answer I want to propose is this: the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art” (558). It is clear from this that he does not think very highly of this art he dubs literalist.
One thing that he talks in detail about is the space the object occupies and how it interacts with the viewer or in his terms, the “beholder” (559). He describes it as being “theatrical” in nature in that “it is a function not just of the obtrusiveness and, often, even aggressiveness of literalist work, but of the special complicity that that work extorts from the beholder” (559). The work does not seek to represent something or convey some sort of meaning or emotion as is so often done in painting, but rather tries to engage the viewer within space.
This is readily prevalent in the work that we looked at in the Berkeley Art Museum, in which a wood box, with the facing side pushed in is attached to a wall about chest height. It is much too plain and simple (made out of only plywood and glue) to mean something or be trying to convey something. Rather it sits there, prominently jutting out from the wall as a way to interact and include the viewer spatially. In a sense, as I took it, minimalism or literalism wasn’t really art, at least as Fried believed. He even says that it is the “negation of art” (559) and quotes Clement Greenberg as calling it “non-art” (559).
Fried also refers to the fact that it is not quite art in that it merely is filling a niche or a void within the genre of art with no real meaning behind it. That is why he seems to prefer modernist art in that there is a meaning in it and the painter, sculptor etc puts time, effort, and care into the piece in order to make it a substantially important and intellectual thing. Literalists on the other hand simply slap some things together as they are and put them in such a space and time so as to physically and spatially implore the viewer. However there is no real meaning behind the works.
One might argue that Duchamp’s Fountain is the same way, but in fact it is not. His rather is commenting on the way we perceive everyday, normal objects and how our views change when their physical shape and purpose change as well. His art has substance and intellectual might behind it. This contrasts sharply the silly and ridiculous box stuck onto the wall at the Berkeley Art Museum. How can that possibly mean anything or be making a statement? It is there solely as “a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is the negation of art” (558).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulia Herron
ReplyDelete4/7/09
Fried’s main quandary with minimalist sculpture is that it is ideological. Unlike modernist sculpture, minimalist sculpture seeks to declare and occupy a position, rather than to leave interpretation up to the viewer. Fried believes minimalist sculpture is both too serious and too ambiguous. Minimalist sculptures have a definite goal and do not include anything extra to distract from this goal. Specific elements of the sculpture blend to become the whole of the sculpture, creating what Fried believed to be hollowness. The artist removes the human element and imagination from the sculpture so that all emphasis is on shape, not subject. Fried prefers modernist sculpture, where the presence of the artist is felt. He also prefers modernist sculptures’ identities as objects, rather than the look of non-art achieved by excessively large minimalist sculptures.
Fried defines theater as the effect or quality of stage presence. He does not want a sculpture to be aggressive or obtrusive, but he wants the sculpture to have presence that demands the viewer’s attention. He states that the theatrical element of a sculpture arises from its size, its similarity to human size and shape, and a hollowness that is anthropomorphic.
Presentness, according to Fried, comes from the hidden naturalism in literalist sculpture. Presentness opposes theatricality because there is not as strong of a human element in a sculpture that has presence. Presence arises from meaning and hidden anthropomorphic qualities.
Fried critiques Smith’s description of the turnpike because it is an experience with no way to frame it in terms of art. According to Smith, the experience was all that mattered, but Fried does not consider the situation of the turnpike to be art. Fried believes Smith’s description is too theatrical and moves away from the genuine emotion Smith felt when he viewed the turnpike, eliminating the viewer’s unique experience.
Michael Fried is very straightforward about his stance on minimalism. He states, "[T]he literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art" (558). He spends his first two sections of the passage explaining how shapes work and how painting is being exhausted. Here is a great opening for literalists to swoop in. They created and pushed for a new trend instead of having it organically develop. Fried looks down on this by making it equivalent to a theater. According to Fried, theater - a form of entertainment - degrades art because the intentions of an actor and an artist are different. Art is supposed to present itself wholly for the viewer, but literalists include the beholder and is situational. There is a specific properties about literalist art that create a specific feeling. For example, the distance that the artwork is supposed to be viewed at is very specific. The work is scaled to a certain size to achieve this. However, it is not said what the specific feeling is. When Tony Smith was questioned about the size of his painting, he replied, "I am not making a monument... I was not making an object" (560). Rather than saying what it is, he only says what it is not. This is one reason why Fried calls literalist art ambiguous. Fried admits that the art style is an ideology instead of an actual art skill or style. Smith furthers his definition of his art "as presences of a sort" (560). Going back to the size of the painting, it is to create a strong stage presence. These presences and feelings were inspired by a car ride that Smith had during nighttime. His inspiration was that a feeling cannot be captured in a pictorial painting and framed; it must be experienced, and that is how encapsulating the beholder in the picture allows them to experience the situation. Of course, Fried's opinion is only one of many about what authentic art but he does show his appreciate for literalist art because we cannot escape it if we are living in the present.
ReplyDeleteErik Narhi
ReplyDeleteHAR1B
Response 13
4/7/09
Fried argues against the literalist notion of the viewer’s role as a part in the situation that encompasses the literalist artwork, its setting and scale, and the viewer themselves. The literalist argument is that this piece then becomes a whole, removed from the concept of parts, and that this whole then becomes a small piece of a grander “play”. Robert Morris also repeatedly emphasizes the role of scale in this “play”:
It is this necessary, greater distance of the object in space from our bodies, in order that it be seen at all, that structures the nonpersonal or public mode
Fried observes this advocation of large-scale art, and notes that it is misguided as far as he is concerned. Since the scale distances the viewer from the piece, it creates a relationship in which the viewer can actually become more relevant than the art itself.
It is evident from this and many other points throughout the essay that a main concern of literalist art, for better or worse, is the concept of a more modest art that is more concerned with its surroundings and context than most of the other art that we have studied. All of the literalists comments cited in Fried’s essay center around the role of the object in its broader role rather than the content of the object itself. I found out intriguing how Fried connected this to the feeling of being disquieted, comparing the literalist objects’ presence to that of another person. It seems to me the obsession with context and presence furthers the role of the object, rather than minimalizing it.
As for Smith’s commentary on the turnpike, Fried is mainly intrigued by the recurring role of scale applied to compare “art” with the “nonart” turnpike. He also obsesses over how Smith’s interpretation of this scene differs from his own—while Smith interpreted this experience as a revelation of the end of pictorial art and the beginning of literalist art, Fried observes the relationship between the turnpike and literalists art, noting that if the turnpike is merely a situation, literalist art is solely a situation as well. After all, the only real separation between built infrastructure and the entity of literalist art is the context of room and observer. This is further affirmed by the inability of Morris to address outdoor literalist art—he considers moving the art outdoors, but then opposes himself, observing that the art would not work in the outdoor context. Fried takes this thought one step further by asserting that “the more effective-…as theater-a setting is made, the more superfluous the works themselves become (160).”
Kelly Sun
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
April 8, 2009
In “Art and Objecthood,” Michael Fried tackles the question of whether or not minimalist sculpture is considered art. According to Fried, minimalist sculpture, or literalism, is not art at all. Although modernist sculpture may be three dimensional, he refers to it as non-art and sees it as ambiguous.
Fried explains how he sees literalist sculpture as a means to generate theatricality, or what he calls “a kind of stage presence” (155). He critiques the minimalist art for its intention to perform for the individual audience. It is “concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work” (153). The literalist artist creates a three dimensional piece with the plan to incorporate the beholder. Unlike traditional works, in which the sculpture is complete in its entirety, the literalist sculpture is not done without the presence of a beholder. As the viewer observes the sculpture from various angles and positions, he or she establishes a relationship with it. In this sense, the literalist sculpture becomes a new type of theater, which Fried greatly opposes. He explains that the modernist artist does not tolerate theater and aims to stray from it.
Fried prefers that modernist sculpture aims to defeat theater. A work of art only becomes successful when it is able to overcome theater. He disagrees with the idea that art must perform for an audience, which is clearly the purpose of theater. A theatrical production is created for the purpose of entertaining an audience or conveying an idea to the viewers. Fried believes art should not have this kind of an intention and should stand for itself regardless of whether or not there is a beholder.
For example, the work of Morris distances the beholder and makes the beholder a subject of the sculpture. The imposing scale of an object is made to make the beholder feel confronted and overwhelmed. This experience not only physically distances the viewer, by making the beholder stand a distance away, it also psychically removes him or her. Through objecthood, Morris desires to create presence which he achieves through large scale sculpture.
Michael Dreibelbis
ReplyDeleteReading Response #blah
In Michael Fried’s “Art in Objecthood” he discusses the relationship between art and the idea of objecthood. He talks about literalist art and how there is not much difference between it and mere objects. This discussion expands into the question of how we should think about art. Fried believes that art shouldn’t be losing a sense of what it is internally, and feels that the modernist art movement is taking that sense away from objects.
He also spends a lot of time talking about Tony Smith’s experience at the New Jersey turnpike. Smith describes his experience as being unlike anything else, and how much he thought of the turnpike as being something of pure untouched art. I think Fried thinks this description of the turnpike to be excessive, even theatrical, and asks what about the turnpike is so special? He goes on to label he things that are in a turnpike, things that are in their basic sense, objects, and remarks on how they could be considered art.
Fried doesn’t think that theatre should play a part in art, which is why he critiques the description of the turnpike so harshly. He doesn’t think that anything loses its sense of being an object when it is seen as art, which is what he determines that Smith does in his epiphany that he describes to us. The quote “The success, even survival, of the arts has come increasingly to depend on their ability to defeat theater” describes Fried’s thoughts on the decline of art to theater. He goes on to tell that film is the realization of the end of art, something that he does not wish to see. It is obvious that Fried is a fan of art, more specifically, art that is not acted on, or made to be more than it is. He is content with art of objects that are just the objects themselves, not dressed up to be something they are not
It seems the Fried really is against this idea that he has created that minimalist structure is about the painting or sculpture just as much as it is everything else that is around that object. To him it is a theatrical situation that is played out in front of the viewer that includes the viewer itself in its representation. I couldn’t really tell after a while if he was against this style or for it because he was absolutely obsessed with the fact that he made this connection. Also his evidence felt more like an indirect proof for a majority of the time that direct proof. When referring to scale he provided an excellent description of the situation within paintings is viewed and how everything affects the understanding. The quote that struck me as the most interesting is the idea that the painting “is not less important, it is just less self-important.”
ReplyDeleteHowever, beside an analysis of sculpture, all his points felt like a general formula of: if it isn’t A, it must be B. But with art its never A or B. It could be a hybrid of the two; it could be A1, A2, B3 or some sort of combination of those subsets. Yet, Fried is too obsessed with the idea of the theater. Actually, like I said before, he’s not obsessed with the idea, he’s obsessed with the fact that he came up with it. He needs to italicize everything that reminds people of the idea and that it’s his. My favorite quote out of all that he throws all over this essay is the following: “And what was Smith’s experience if not the experience of what I have been calling theater?” I get it. You came up with it. I’m twelve pages into an essay YOU wrote, I don’t need you to tell me that this is your idea every paragraph.
Also, Fried has no concept of the use of italicizing. I could go through and count all the times he italicizes a word, but it would take me more time than I feel that deserves. Using an italics helps emphasize a point yes, but give the reader a little credit to figure out that when you say the concept of situation in one paragraph and then again in another paragraph that the reader can piece together that it’s the SAME IDEA when you’re arguing about how situation plays to the idea of the theatrical sense, you know, the point you reiterate every 10 lines.
Also, can he please find a different word than war. Theater and theatrically are not at war, they’re in a constant balance of importance in each piece. They aren’t trying to kill each other.
I know this was supposed to talk about what Fried was arguing against, but I didn’t feel an argument in the sense that he was against it. He was too self-involved to get past the fact that he came up with this idea that at least what I could bear to keep reading to tell me if he was for or against what minimalist sculpture created.
Michael Fried’s greatest issue with minimalist artwork is its theatrical correspondence. He believes that minimalist artwork cannot be categorized as and object and that it non-personal. Fried stresses how the grand size of minimalist artworks creates distance and separation between the piece and its viewer. The issue Fried sees with this is that gigantic size creates an overwhelming state and requires its viewer to do work. Fried states: “…this distance between an object and {viewer} creates a more extended situation, because physical participation becomes necessary (559).” In this way, one must distance him or herself correctly in order to view the art the way one should. As physical participation become necessary, the art work becomes theoretical. Fried defines theater as a large, desperate variety of activities. He states that theater lacks value and quality—Fried conclusively names theater as an inferior form of art. In this way, he declares minimalist artwork as worthless as well.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that Fried appreciates about modernist sculpture is its 3D aspect. He believes that it rids the problem of illusionism; he believes the three dimensional aspect supports representation and rids the traditional limits of painting (557). He believes modernist sculpture can be identified as a direct object whereas minimalist artwork cannot. Fried states that with the aspect of 3D, the artists presence can be felt.
Fried critiques Tony Smith description of the unfinished turnpike because Friend embraces the aspect of the third dimension. Fried does not believe that an experience can be depicted in 2D and therefore combats Smith’s message.
The one thing that I found the most interesting in Fried’s text is his belief that theater is the lowest form of art. I just thought that I would mention this because people highly embraces the “Fountain” as an aspect of modernism—though I view it is merely as a urinal flipped around. I do not see the way in which one can compare forms of art in a hierarchical manner—especially when the art forms are so different.
Felby Chen
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
Michael Fried extensively discusses in “Art and Objecthood” what he finds wrong with minimalist sculpture. First off, minimalist sculpture is “largely ideological,…an expression of a general and pervasive condition” (148-149), for minimalist sculpture is more abstract than set in stone as a solid concept. It is hard to get a firm grasp on what minimalist sculpture really is, for this type of art “defines or locates the position it aspires to occupy” (149), creating its own presence. Presence is “a theatrical effect or quality – a kind of stage presence” (155) that is so attention-grabbing that all eyes are on what is being presented. Presence is also “a function not just of the obtrusiveness and, often, even aggressiveness of literalist work, but of the special complicity that the work extorts from the beholder” (155), becoming what the viewer interprets the literalist work as. According to Fried, “the literalist case against painting rests mainly on two counts: the relational character of almost all painting and the ubiquitousness of pictorial illusion” (149). Fried finds that minimalist sculpture is too general and unfocused on a certain subject. Minimalist sculpture is so general that it can relate to almost any type of painting.
Fried furthermore condemns minimalist sculpture because minimalist sculpture is not “made part by part [and consists of] specific elements…separate from the whole, thus setting up relationships within the work” (150). This is a quality that modernist sculpture has, which Fried finds that minimalist sculpture lacks. The term “part-by-part”, as defined by Donald Judd, is associated “with what he calls anthropomorphism: ‘A beam thrusts; a piece of iron follows a gesture; together they form a naturalistic and anthropomorphic image” (150). It is the mixing of parts to create something larger. Fried advances to discuss that modernist painting, in comparison to minimalist painting, “has come to find it imperative that it defeat or suspend its own objecthood” (151), hoping to convey itself as a painting rather than as an object.
Fried believes that minimalist sculpture, “the literalist espousal of objecthood, amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater” (153), desiring attention rather than focusing on aspects of art. Theater, in Fried’s terms, is “the negation of art” (153). Minimalist painting should create timelessness, for “everything counts – not as part of the object, but as part of the situation in which its objecthood is established and on which that objecthood at least partly depends” (155). One should not cease to consider all aspects of an artwork for everything surrounding its creation adds to the artwork.
The general approach that is often employed by minimalist sculpture is then pointed out specifically in Tony Smith’s description of a night car ride on the New Jersey Turnpike. Fried criticizes Tony Smith’s description because he feels that Smith regards the experience “as wholly accessible to everyone” (158), which as described earlier, is a common characteristic of minimalist sculpture.
Danielle Beeve
ReplyDeleteHistory of Art R1B
Section 6
Michael Fried’s primary concern with what he terms ”literalist art” seems to be the theatrical quality to it as well as its focus on “objecthood”. When referring to objecthood Fried states that “The meaning…of ‘the condition of non-art’ is what I have been calling objecthood. It is as though objecthood alone can, in the present circumstances, secure something’s identity, if not as nonart, at least as neither painting nor sculpture; or as though a work of art - more accurately, a work of modernist painting or sculpture - were in some essential respect not an object” (558). Fried is referring to literalist art as “non-art”, and “neither painting nor sculpture”. This seems to imply a certain disdain towards the genre.
Fried then goes on to say that “the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now the negation of art. Literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work…Whereas in previous art ‘what is to be had from the work is located strictly within [it],’ the experience of literalist art is of an object in a situation – one that, virtually by definition, includes the beholder” (558). The theatrical qualities of literalist art are unwelcome to Fried, he prefers previous modernist works whose meanings are solely within the pieces themselves, not influenced by the setting in which they are placed. He states this explicitly when he says “what is wrong with literalist work is not that it is anthropomorphic but that the meaning and, equally, the hiddenness of its anthropomorphism are incurably theatrical” (560).
When referring to Tony Smith’s description of a car ride to an unfinished turnpike, Fried remarks “It is as though the turnpike…[reveals] the theatrical character of literalist art, only without the object, that is, without the art itself – as though the object is needed only within a room” (561). Here Fried implies that the work of art itself is not even important, only its surroundings are. This seems to greatly decrease the value of the art. He also states “Moreover, in each case being able to go on and on indefinitely is of the essence. What replaces the object - what does the same job of distancing or isolating the beholder, of making him a subject, that the object did in a closed room – is above all the endlessness, or objectlessness, of the approach or onrush of perspective” (561). The setting is again important, this time a feeling of endlessness sets the scene. He finishes his negative appraisal of Smith’s turnpike revelation by saying “the more effective – meaning effective as theater – a setting is made, the more superfluous the works themselves become” (562). Here then the increase in importance of setting that is found in literalist art is decreasing the value of the art, in Fried’s opinion.
Fried first states his objection to literalist work when he states, “What is wrong with literalist work is not that it is anthropomorphic but that the meaning and, equally, the hiddenness of its anthropomorphism are incurably theatrical… The crucial distinction that I am proposing is between work that is fundamentally theatrical and work that is not. “(157) This viewpoint requires the explanation the terms Fried uses. I will revisit this after:
ReplyDeleteFried cites Greenberg in his definition of presence and its association with literalist work. The two, it seems, are intimately linked. Presence has two qualities. First it is achieved through size, and secondly, it is “achieved through the look of non-art.”(152) The effectiveness of size is later described as occurring in an optimal size, and the larger is not necessarily the better. The aspect of non-art is less easily distinguished. Painting, for example, is not offered this classification due to the fact that by applying anything on a canvas already implies a certain amount of ‘art’. Therefore, sculpture, which is three-dimensional can be classified as non-art. Furthermore, non-art is synonymous with what Fried refers to as ‘objecthood’. The gestalt of these terms is presence, which ultimately is “when it demands that the beholder take it into account.”(155) Greenberg and Fried agree that the effect of presence is essentially a theatrical effect, which is where Fried criticizes the literalists.
Tony Smith’s realization of the experience versus the pictorial nature of art brings into play a contradiction. The landscape, the unfinished turnpike as Smith describes and experiences it displays the essence of art, yet simultaneously it exists in a characteristically non-art setting. In other words, to experience this setting in a gallery, completely changes it, yet this is the format of most displayed art. It seems the minimalists strive to reconcile this tension through their anthropomorphic attempts, yet Fried would argue they fail.
Fried states, “The success, even the survival, of the arts has come increasingly to depend on their ability to defeat theater. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than within theater itself, where the need to defeat what I have been calling theater has chiefly made itself felt as the need to establish a drastically different relation to its audience.”(163) This seems to be more towards the core of Fried’s arguments, and it is constantly reiterated throughout his essay. What I take this to mean is that literalist art falls short because it strives to defeat theater, and this seems to be intimately linked to the very nature of art. Theater establishes itself in a context, which is viewed by, and more importantly for, the isolated viewer. However, literalist art attempts to be viewed in the same vein as nature or perhaps Smith’s turnpike is viewed. In other words, it is impossible to produce a form of art which exists just as nature does. Thus, hiding behind the theater, or even attempting to defeat it is not only futile and impossible, but a sham.