RE: [microsound] to be against pure surfaces (in the morning)

[Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hal Foster lectured at the Art Institute of Chicago a few months ago.  He
pointed out that (at least) the visual minimalists weren't exactly looking
for purity, at least not in the utopian sense that seems to be coming
across here.  Many of them were actually reductionists, attempting to
distill art into its fundamental constituents, and at the same time
actually trying to invite the public to participate in a
dialog.  You get work from Donald Judd and Sol Lewitt which is essentially
formal, iterative practices, and then others like Smithson who eventually
move work completely outside of the art gallery practice.
 
This doesn't appear to me to be "art for art's sake"; instead, it seems
to me this is a reaction to the somewhat obtuse, aloof and occasionally
irresponsible action painter's attitude, which was certainly "art for
art's sake".  Unfortunately, the general public did (and to a large
extent, still does) view this work as largely opaque.  I can't be sure
why, but perhaps because of its severity, the overall scepticism of the
culture and society's need to reject nearly every source of authority at
the time.  I certainly can't relate to that reaction.  When I first saw
and heard minimalist works, I had an immediate affinity for it.  I do
think that Hal Foster is now writing and examining the "failure" of
minimalism's cause, and I look forward to reading it.

Not sure how this all ties in.  Just throwing out my two cents..

_________________________
Christopher Sorg
Multimedia Artist/Teacher
http://csorg.cjb.net
csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx