Frank Stella was an American painter born in Massachusetts. He graduated with a degree
in History from Princeton University, before moving to New York in 1958.
At this time in America, abstract expression was huge. Jackson Pollock had a 4-page spread
in LIFE magazine, and he was most known for his ‘drip ‘ paintings, where he would
lay a large piece of canvas on the floor, and he would pour, drip, and splatter paint
all over the surface.
They were splashy, showy, intuitive, and chaotic.
Pollock’s work, as well as the work of other abstract expressionists, like Franz Klein,
was incredibly influential on the young Stella. However, upon his arrival in New York City,
he felt compelled to rebel against this expressive use of paint.
Instead he was drawn to the “flatness” of works like those of Barnett Newman, and
the “target” paintings of Jasper Johns. He began to produce works that were not so
much a picture, as much as they were an object. They didn’t represent anything of the physical
or emotional world of the artist. He stated that the pictures were “a flat surface with
paint on it - nothing more”
Stella’s work culminated in a series of Black Paintings.
Now when you first see the work, you might be taken aback a little. It seems so straightforward:
The elements themselves seem quite simple: Black parallel lines arranged in a very deliberate
arrangement. Black enamel paint. A thicker than conventional canvas.
It is not immediately apparent how it is made, or the thought process behind each decision.
It seems strong and stoic, maybe even a little cold and void of emotions.
These paintings were made freehand by Stella, with a house painters brush. You can see irregularities
when you look closely at the surface. But you’re not going to see any gestural strokes,
like those of the abstract expressionists. Really, the hand is quite removed. You can’t
really tell where each stroke begins or ends. Or what the movement is, other than following
the line.
Stella called these stripes a “regulated pattern” that forced "illusionistic space
out of the painting at a constant rate."
The precisely delineated black stripes intended to emphasize the flatness of the canvas and
really force the audience to realize and acknowledge the canvas as a flat surface
with paint on it.
This was important because it is in direct opposition with a really widely held belief
that painting is a window into the three-dimensional space. Paintings reflected things of the real
world. This was an idea that dominated since the Renaissance.
The thicker than conventional canvases, really emphasised the object-ness, as opposed to
the thinner, more window-like quality of conventional canvases.
And this apparent materiality - of paint and canvas being just paint and canvas - as opposed
to a more representational or illusionistic image - blurred the boundaries between painting
and sculpture.
This would become a pattern we see in a group of artists that, after several different names,
would later be known as the Minimalists. They would also use non-art materials such as plywood,
scrap metal, and fluorescent light bulbs.
They were characterized by unitary, geometric forms and industrial materials.
It was a cool anonymity that contrasts with the hot expressivism of the previous generation
of artists.
They attempted to avoid metaphorical associations, symbolism, and suggestions of spiritual transcendence.
They really tried to remove suggestions of self-expressionism and illusions - no signs
of the artist’s hand or thought process or aesthetic decisions.
The Minimalists' emphasis on eradicating signs of authorship, inevitably led to the sense
that the meaning was not so much "inside" the object, as much as it was on the surface
- it existed because of the viewer's interaction with it.
By the late 1960s, Minimalism began to show signs of breaking apart. A lot of the artists
were moving on to different ideas, and it was also receiving a lot of criticism from
people who thought it wasn’t the right direction to go in to.
The most important of these would be Michael Fried's essay "Art and Objecthood," published
in Artforum in 1967. In it, he wrote about the importance of the movement as a turning
point in modern art, but he also wrote about how he was uncomfortable with what it meant.
For him, these artists were not so much creating a work of art, as much as a political and/or
ideological statement about the nature of art.
Just because you arrange non-art objects in a three-dimensional space and proclaim it
as "art", it didn't necessarily make it Art. For him, he said Art is Art and an object
is an object.
Minimalism began to off shoot into several different branches. And it has a great legacy
for the movements that would follow, put under the greater umbrella of "Post-Minimalism"
art. There was the “Light and Space” movement in California. Land art became more popular
all over US. Eccentric Abstraction, and other developments were in direct response to the
problems that Minimalism posed.
Minimalism seemed to be one of those things that had to be done. Someone had to push it
all the way.
But it also was scary because they’re no going further from there.
What do you guys think?
I hope you guys enjoyed this video. This Minimalism video was highly requested last time when
I asked you guys what you wanted to see next.
So I would like to hear what your vote is between Color Field Painters (like Mark Rothko,
Barnett Newman) or Impressionists (Renior, Degas) All that Jazz.
That should be a good one.
Be sure to check out my blog post at LittleArtTalks.com There will be one that accompanies this very
video about Franz Klein, and his life and work.
Thanks so much for watching, I’ll see you guys next time.