Minimalism and Boredom: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Minimalism and Boredom » Minimalism and Boredom

Minimalism and Boredom
Reflection on the appropriate uses of constraints in art

Page: 1 2

Minimalism and Boredom

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Reading - England

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 970

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:08 PM: Subject: Minimalism and Boredom	#1
Unless we're Andy "I like to be bored" Warhol, we want our art to be stimulating. Some art is unengaging and dull. Typically there are two exclusive reasons why an artwork is boring. It may be because the work is too repetitive and unstimulating. Alternatively, the artwork may be too busy, overstimulating and incomprehensible. Some artists deliberately use a constrained set of elements when creating their art. We can identify two different types of justification for using a limited pallete: the minimalist justification of stipping a work down to its most fundamental features; and the oulipo justification of using constraints to force the artist to try new and innovative ways of expressing things. Often minimalism is unstimulating insfoar as we are easily able to grasp the core elements of a work and it soon becomes dull and repetitive. We find this in the visual arts, music and literature. A significant degree of complexity and nuance can be lost in the stripping down to supposedly fundamental (often formal) features. While it is good to be free of irrelevancies, much of what is relevant in a complex work is to be found in the intracacies and well as the repetitions. In contrast, art which uses progressive constraints as a means to stimulate new heights of creative is often witty and engaging. Of course, some constraints are too limiting and make for stilted works. Likewise, some constraints are not challenging enough to inspire new ideas in-themselves, being hardly less constraining than the constraints of their respective genres. The motivation in the case of the oulipo type justification is to create engaging works through contraint. The minimalist justification contains no such inherent motivation to be engaging. As such, it is no surprise that minimalist art is often dull.
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - The Duchess

Hypothesis
Honest Soul

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 659

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:27 PM:	#2
Are minimalists artists just lazy ? Different types of art are there perhaps to be contrasted with one another and minimalism may be the yang to the ying of complex art.
We build too many walls and not enough bridges. - Newton

spock
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 11/01/09 - 04:22 PM:	#3
Is intrigue complexity or relative intrigue? Oulipo art is still minimalistic in a sense because it is restrained. Minimalist probably are not lazy because the essence of art is to be aware. Minimalists must search for what they believe makes A, A and A distinct from B.Minimalism is the minimal amount of definining characteristics possible in a work.

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:22 PM:	#4
Minimalist art is engaging, no matter how much its selected materials suggest otherwise. It ain't my bag either, but like all art it's intended to stimulate a response from the viewer, and is inevitably considered/discussed within the context of the ongoing dialog of fine art. "Witty" aspects of a given work are not necessarily voided by the minimalist approach, but may be expressed in a less overt manner. If it can be contextualized, it can be art. The rest is taste.

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Reading - England

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 970

Posted 11/02/09 - 03:18 AM:	#5
Hypothesis: Minimalists aren't necessarily lazy- in fact in some cases the creation of art using fewer elements can be very difficult or demanding. However, the effort spent creating art doesn't necessarily translate into effort required appreciating it. Spock: I'm not sure I understand your question about intrigue- for a work to be intriguing it must have a sufficient degree of complexity sustain intrigue. Sashianova: Certainly minimalist art in general is considered and discussed within an ongoing dialogue, and obviously there are minimalist artworks that are engaging. However, many instances of minimalist art fail to be engaging because they, the individual artworks, lack sufficient complexity, as such they are unable to sustain a meaningful discussion.
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - The Duchess

spock
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 11/02/09 - 07:14 PM:	#6
Sorry. I will try to rephrase: Is an intriguing work complex or relatively interesting/intriguing when compared to the total amount of defining chrarcteristics? Does complexity in itslef imply intriguingness? I agree with Sahianova. All art is intended to provoke an emotional attraction of interest so people will want to engage themselves in it.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 268

Posted 11/02/09 - 07:30 PM:	#7
Minimalism may be aesthetically worthless but economically valuable as long as a customer is willing to pay good money for it. I would be more than happy to sell blank canvases if people were willing to buy them.
thanatos

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Reading - England

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 970

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:57 PM:	#8
Spock: Complexity in itself doesn't imply intriguingness- the ultra complex is just incomprehensible, and even moderately complex works can be dull if their subject matter is uninteresting. (A saga about accountancy could be complex but unengaging). However, a certain degree of complexity is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for a work to be engaging. The defining characteristics of an artwork could be quite few, but have a lot of potential meaning and depth and so still be engaging- for example a good haiku, The complexity here wouldn't be in the number of elements the work is made up of, but in relationships between the different elements. jsidelko: Minimalism qua minimalism doesn't seem to be a promising aesthetic justification, though certainly there are some good minimalist artworks. But, you are of course right: conning stupid rich people with a dubious aesthetic philosophy is a good way of making money if you move in the right circles. Unfortunately, that route isn't really open to proles like us.
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - The Duchess

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:22 PM:	#9
notquitethere wrote: Sashianova: Certainly minimalist art in general is considered and discussed within an ongoing dialogue, and obviously there are minimalist artworks that are engaging. However, many instances of minimalist art fail to be engaging because they, the individual artworks, lack sufficient complexity, as such they are unable to sustain a meaningful discussion. This could be a description of art in general, with just a few minor changes to the context. Certainly (insert style) art in general is considered and discussed within an ongoing dialogue, and obviously there are (insert style) artworks that are engaging. However, many instances of (insert style) art fail to be engaging because they, the individual artworks, lack sufficient (insert value), as such they are unable to sustain a meaningful discussion. I think Duke Ellington had it right with regard to all art with his famous quote, "There's only two kinds of music. The good kind, and the other kind." In fine art, contemporary critics are mostly concerned with the latest development. The cutting edge gallery scene would find even the most complex work dull if it were created in a style which was thoroughly explored and totally gutted in the past. This is why representational painting is considered "dead" by many. It started dying when the camera was invented, and continued to be buried by all the possible ways one could apply paint and create imagery a camera could not. Minimalist art will get explored to its farthest possible applications and die a natural death in the art world, if it hasn't already. It will be loved by some, rejected by others, its greatest contributors will be revered for their innovations, and ultimately whether or not one person finds it inherently boring or lacking wit and disengaging is only relevant to the one person espousing those views and to others who share those views. If minimalist art is accepted by the fine art establishment there will be critics who find it exciting, witty, and engaging. Personally, I love representational art and my favorite stuff is surrealism and graffiti. Low brow illustration. So, like I said minimalist art isn't my thing either. I struggled for a long time to accept that my own tastes don't dictate what is relevant to everyone else. The great thing is that conversely the establishment doesn't get to tell us what to like.

baldmountain
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 11/06/09 - 06:09 AM:	#10
notquitethere wrote: Unless we're Andy "I like to be bored" Warhol, we want our art to be stimulating. I think this is a false starting point. We want to connect with a piece of art. To have it evoke some kind of feeling or emotion in us. Before we can do this we need to understand the piece. We don't have to understand it in the same way the artist visualized it during creation. We just have to be able to wrap our own context around it. The degree that a piece of art meshes with our context will manifest itself by how much we react to it. It doesn't matter what that reaction is. Whether the reaction is happiness, sadness, excitement, revulsion or even boredom isn't important. A piece of art succeeds by how much people are able to grasp the piece and their reaction to it. The minimalism, repetitiveness or complexity has nothing to with art. Only the reaction of perceiving it matters.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.