Obviously object orientation and perspective are terms coming from Minimal Art. Nevertheless, some comparative considerations can be made about these concepts and Minimal Music. This chapter will deal with Object Art in the first place, but Minimalist tendencies in painting and the ambiguous proportion to objects in Minimal Art will also be taken into account.
Painting and object
Painting and Object Art form part of Minimal Art from the beginning onwards. From a quantitative point of view the latter is dominant and better known to the public. Critics have always been arguing with artists, or vice versa, about which art movement represents Minimal Art. The fact that Object Art develops out of the paintings of Frank Stella does not seem to play a major role for this discussion.
Jo Baer (born in Seattle in 1929), Robert Mangold (born in North Tonawanda, NY, in 1937), Brice Marden (born in Bronxville, NY, in 1938) and Agnes Martin (born in Maklin, Canada, in 1912; died in Taos, New Mexico, in 2004) are painters that form part of this art movement. However, they do not further develop the Minimalist idea but implement their influences to the medium they are working with. While this group explores monochromatic painting by a reductive approach and seriality, Object Art is busy with factors like material, form and space. Due to the dislike of Object Art of all forms of paintings, the art of painting and its right to exist are questioned. In comparison to The Bricks of Carl Andre a picture can not lay claim to Non-Art, which excludes the criticism referring to the established area of art and its exhibition halls that is typical of Minimal Art.
Donald Judd criticises that the rectangular canvas and its limited space do not offer enough space and possibilities for the desired simplicity. In comparison to colours on just one and the same level, space seems to be much more interesting and powerful to him. With this explanation he predicts a soon end for paintings in general, which he considers as remnants of earlier European times. This pushing for absolute reduction is also limited within space. According to the curator George Stolz Minimalism has always tended to destroy itself because of its own perfectionism. He remarks that immaculate simplicity of a white cube fixed on a white wall can neither be more immaculate nor simpler.[1]
Morris and Judd even turn their backs to sculptures which are, like paintings, constructed step by step by means of addition and composition.[2] Therefore both of them support the idea of the inseparability of a work of art. Since an object can just be composed of a minimum of separate parts in order to be minimal, in the ideal case the form itself becomes the object.
Function of three-dimensionality
According to Morris’ essay Notes on Sculpture (1966) the internal relation of former works does no longer exist in the work of art itself but develops a function of space, light and range of vision. This new orientation towards reception can be traced back to the personal withdrawal from their own work by several Minimalist Artists.
Since the recipient is now located in the same space as the work one gets the opportunity to create their own relation to the work. By taking different positions in the room and by the changing lighting conditions new aspects of perception evolve. If the recipient moves while looking at the work a dynamic feeling of size develops. If one views a large-scale object an involuntary distance between recipient and work is caused because of the pragmatic desire to perceive the entirety of the work.
These physical and psychic distances are to be seen in Carl Andre’s works. The wooden object Shape and Structure (1965), which was exhibited during the first group show of Minimal Art, was so massive that the gallery floor ran the risk of caving in, and therefore the object had to be removed. The artist’s comment was that he wanted to take up the whole space, hold it back and not just fill it.[3]
Richard Serra also produces imposing objects that are usually positioned in public spaces in order to cause a surprising effect on the people passing by. Since this is not possible in an empty, white showroom he dissociates himself from Minimalists like Judd and their concept of space. He follows a similar approach of the space concept as Andre and, furthermore, abandons the traditional showrooms of galleries and confronts the public with partly monumental objects. Thus, conflicts are inevitable.
His most famous piece of art of this type is the sculpture Tilted Arc (1981) which was exhibited on the Federal Plaza of New York. The slightly bent wall made of steel was over three metres high and provocatively placed on the plaza to become an obstacle to the people passing by. Serra is interested in creating a completely new situation and forces the public to tackle this situation in daily life far away from the galleries. The public’s response to the sculpture was largely negative and people campaigned vociferously for the removal of the object, which they achieved in 1989.
The application of authority transmitted by the materials and forms that are often very large and heavy is of singular importance to Object Artists. In art history and particularly during the period of Minimal Art all synonyms for power, like authoritarian, strong or dominating are bywords for a successful work of art. Qualities like soft or flexible, though, are seldom taken seriously. With the second generation of Minimal Art and the discovery of new materials and forms this interpretation is forced onto the sidelines.
An artwork is considered as vigorous if it is perceived as a whole, with all the elements integrated into the same entity. Instead of forming a unit out of the most diverse individual elements afterwards, Minimalist Object Artists avoid unequal parts within their artworks from the very beginning by emanating from absolute forms like cubes.
One example of this unconditioned form of reduction in space as well as of clearly claiming authority is e.g. the cube Die (1962) from Tony Smith (born in New Jersey in 1912; died in New York in 1980). This object’s side lengths are six feet long each, which corresponds to about 180 cm, the dice being an ultimate obstacle because of its magnitude. Even the title fits in with the characteristic of unity that embraces the whole work because the length of six feet refers to the term ‘six feet under’ meaning the state of a buried person.
Smith’s definition of the specific size of this cube is worth mentioning, to which he refers in more detail in the question-and-answer game described as follows. Being asked why he did not make his work bigger so as to surmount the viewer, he replies that he did not create a monument. When he is posed the question why he did not make his work smaller so as to be able to see over it he responds that he did not create an object.[4] That draws the attention to Smith’s individual classification of the size of three-dimensional artworks, situating his work between the public character of a monument and the intimacy of a smaller object.
Richard Serra reveals a particularly strong will of power which takes shape not only in his scandalous work at the Federal Plaza in New York but becomes apparent also one decade before in his series Prop Sculptures (1969-1987). In this series, aside from the most works’ immense size there is the constant danger that the single iron slabs which are simply leaned against one another could fall apart. In fact, the slabs are kept together solely by gravitation and their own weight, which even causes some injuries of the workers in charge of assembling and disassembling the installation.
Furthermore, not only a certain size but also the directness of a work can transmit a feeling of vigour. Robert Morris’ construction Untitled (1966), which is about 80 cm high, has the structure of a wire netting that evokes associations with a cage or a prison and claims absolute authority in spite of its relatively small size.
Analogies with music
Although there are no direct parallels of Object Art and perspective with Minimal Music some similar approaches can be noted. While the spatiality of Minimal Art allows for new perspectives on non-changing elements, the technique of phasing brings along a similar change in the reception of Minimal Music.
From 1963 onwards Steve Reich as the first Minimalist composer deals intensively with phasing models in tape music. The title of the first composition in which he applies this technique throughout the whole piece is It’s gonna rain (1965). Therein he plays several tape loops of a lay sermon, the content of which is confined to the phrase mentioned in the title, with several tape recorders at the same time. Since the speed of reproduction differs slightly from recorder to recorder, the original theme is perceived from a new perspective because of the interfering tracks.
This effect becomes particularly obvious in Reich’s work Piano Phase (1967) where the original pattern is relatively complex, consisting of simultaneously played triadic and shifting figures. By the gradual shift of these figures new intervals can be perceived which do not form part of the original pattern. This effect corresponds to the viewers moving around an artwork in Minimal Art who, as a consequence, gain a new perspective of it.
On a superficial basis the differences between art and music persist since the change of perspectives in music has to be determined previously by a strict concept and cannot be influenced by the listener, whereas in art the spectator is awarded the individual right to choose any viewing position he likes.
At a closer look, however, particularly Reich’s compositions reveal psycho-acoustic by-products such as e.g. the shifts between unisons and overlapping sounds or the microtonal changes of intervals. The composer does not cause these shifts deliberately, rather they are perceived only in the context of all the single voices. To a large extent, the effect depends on the interpretation by the musician as well as on the reception by the audience.[5] That is to say, how acoustic phenomena are finally perceived by the listener is influenced strongly by individual concentration. As in Minimal Art, up to a certain extent the recipients are granted control when it comes to perceiving the fine details of a composition.
The most radical example of phasing while at the same time reducing the original material in Minimal Music is represented by the work Poème symphonique (1962) by György Ligeti (born in Transylvania, Romania, in 1923). The composer is, however, not considered as one of the classical representatives of Minimal Music. 100 metronomes keep ticking at different speeds, which results in identifying an acoustic whole instead of highly complex polyphonic sounds. This, in turn, results in what the Minimalists Judd and Morris claim, namely in replacing the artwork consisting of many components by an artwork considered an entity.