Sub-Spaced.com > Art > MA MMID

 

Contents

 

 

Introduction                                                                              2

 

Minimalism                                                                               

            Reductionism                                                               3

            Permutations                                                                4

 

Interactive Art

            Democracy and Control                                                            9

            Artist-Framework, Spectator-Presenter                          10

 

Conclusion                                                                               11

 

Footnotes                                                                                13

 

Bibliography                                                                             15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

This essay will draw together two differing movements, that of Minimalism and Interactive art, and through these attempt to create a synthesis of the two movements in view to a method of art production where the viewer controls aesthetic selection.

 

Within the to two noted art movements, the essay will restrict each movement towards the areas that are most significant to the synthesis. Minimalism will only focus upon reductionism and permutations within serial art and Interactive arts will focus upon the control of the artwork and artistic framework of the artwork.

In view to the reasons behind such decisions that limit the art movements to refined areas of interest, Minimalism will be seen to reduce the artwork to its most controllable elements, removing the extraneous non-controllable. In regards to such reductionism, mathematics being incorporated hence leading to permutational serial art and the reduction of the subjective.

Interactive art focus stems from the move from artist to viewer in terms of exhibition presentation, hence a further reduction of the artist. With regard to artistic framework, this continues the passage of control from artist to viewer whereby now the artist will create the framework for the art and the viewer will complete the artwork through interaction.

 

It is the viewpoint of the writer that permutational art through the disruption of Metanarrative legitimation should incorporate viewer participation in order to remove the artists’ aesthetic control which is inessential.

Though the two movements have differing context in which they developed, and continue, it is the contention that in order for the artist to continue within a field without a metanarrative legitimising cause, that viewer participation should be incorporated in order to resolve the artists’ aesthetic control which will be seen to be inessential to the control of permutational serial art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minimalism

 

Reductionism

 

“Minimalism’s apparent simplicity is the result of rigorous focusing, the elimination of distraction.”[1] (Tate, 1989, pp. 7)

 

What is the necessity to rigorously focus, to  reduce all extraneous material from art, to remove distraction? In order to answer this it would be better to advance the question ‘what is the crux of the art?’ From this position it can be seen that Minimalism necessity to reduce results from the requirement to remove all inessential detail[2] relieving the heart, or base meaning, of the art without the distraction. For minimalism deals with the visual translation of relational and contextual meanings associated with sensations[3]. In this regard minimalism either reduces or removes conceptual or visual elements, for instance the arbitrary or aesthetics, for the artist to fully explore their ideas[4]. Experiences most closely associated with primary sensations are henceforth distinguished against those considered to be derivative. Minimalism necessity then is in the control of all or as many variables as possible that are inherent in an art work, reducing the actual art object to a level of less self-importance[5].

 

The reductive element within minimalism is most noticeable in the form of the art object in itself. Objects in this sense are composed of manufactured mass produced units, allowing for each element to be identical and henceforth of equal value within the art work[6]. In view to Sol Lewitt (b 1928), the reduction to the cube format allowed him to explore systematic and repetitive variations, which eventually lead to ‘Serial Art’[7].

 

‘Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.’[8] (Lewitt. S, 1967, pp. 835)

 

With the construction of the composition through basic units, the emphasis was placed on the mechanically produced as opposed to the handmade, and the standardised repeatable as opposed to the uniquely singular[9].

The necessity for each unit to be of a basic reproducible form allows for the unit to be in itself deliberately uninteresting to the aesthetic composition and to become more an intrinsic part of the work as a whole[10].

In this regard of basic unit form, the variable pertaining to unifying form has been controlled allowing for series and modularity of the artwork through permutations to be increased.

 

With the use of reductionism within minimalism to allow for a high level of control of an artworks variables[11], art in this sense is reduced to its bare minimal, but through this comes the necessity to introduce elements that allows for a relational unifying aspect between individual units and a high degree of control to be created. Namely mathematics and the use of grids.

In this sense a system, mathematics and the grid, were incorporated to order and unify[12] the  composition within the art work (for instance Sol Lewitt). Here mathematics not only created relationships of ‘crystal clarity’[13] but also added to the aesthetics of the object. Mathematics within Minimalism should not be thought of as the inclusion of complex mathematical theorems (mathematics per se) but viewed more as purely numbers used within a system. For the level of mathematics used by most artists is based on either simple arithmetic or number systems[14] indeed Hanne Darboven stated following her work with mathematics and permutations that ‘…everything is based on numbers…Numbers in permutations, in progressive, symmetrical, and mathematical sequences…I find this fascinating, being pretty ignorant of mathematics’.[15] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 63)

 

In this sense it is more of a means to an end in order to clarify the unity of the composition, rather than to solve or portray complex mathematically concepts, for even a simple set of rules can produce a high level of complexity

 

Perhaps the greatest reason for the inclusion of mathematics, was in the reduction of the artists own subjectivity[16], for once the mathematical plan is set, the work is created irrespective of the artist aesthetic and conceptual choice[17] while at the same time remaining grounded in the reality of external factors or existing facets of representation.[18] So in view to Lewitt’s permutation sequences, the necessity for personal[19] and compositional[20] decision making is removed.

 

With the adoption of mathematics, minimalist artist were now able to extend their artwork in to the two areas of Serial Art or Modular Art. Both systems follow the idea of reductionism and of standardisation of units, with the addition of repetition of units through mathematical systems, though modular art (an example would be Sol Lewitt’s ‘Variations of incomplete open cubes’) relied primarily on the grid[21] for composition and serial art on alteration or rotation within a pre-set system[22]. Indeed Lewitt’s introduction of seriality into his work, led to his production of works in which ‘visual complexity is derived  from rational simplicity’.[23] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 63)

 

In view to the inclusion of the grid within the artwork, the artist was now able to unify the picture plane through the creation of a system of identical and contiguous modules[24] and allows for order to be established out of the apparent chaos[25]. Hence allowing the standardised placement of units within a unifying whole and their relationship to one another within the artwork to be emphasised.

 

Permutations

 

‘There was always the idea of getting back to square one. For me, it just became a method to elaborate on. When I finally got to the simplest kind of thing – the cube or the solid cube… I naturally had to make elaborations…Everybody naturally reduces to what they think is the most pertinent thing and takes that and elaborates on that’[26] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 116)

 

What are permutations?

Permutations can be said to be possible outcomes from a set simple mathematical plan. For example: Turn a square 10 degrees until 90 degrees is reached.

This would create 10 possible outcomes, the first and last being visually the same, though conceptually different. What this means for the artist is 10 possible images is represent to fulfil the set plan.

 

An example of possible permutations of a set plan on a larger scale can be seen in Sol Lewitt artwork, ‘Variations of incomplete open cubes’ 1974, where all possible permutations are represented through a simple plan of constructing an open three dimensional cube (through a two dimensional image format) of 3 construction lines to 11 construction lines.

 

Variations of incomplete open cubes 1974

 

‘Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem.’[27]

 

From this it can be seen that there are two routes that the artist can take in view to mathematical permutations. Finite and infinite, closed and open systems. The image by Sol Lewitt and the example of rotating a square by 10 degrees, both above, illustrates a closed or finite systems whereby no decisions have to be made once the system has been decided upon[28] and all permutations can be represented, this is best illustrated by Adrian Piper ‘…finite systems…that serve to contain an idea within certain formal limits and to exhaust the possibilities of the idea set by those limits’[29] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 65). In contrast to this is open or infinite systems where decisions have to be made on start and stop and when to change direction[30], an example of this is ‘Untitled’ painted aluminium relief 1965.

 

‘Untitled’ painted aluminium relief 1965

 

This artwork follows the alterations/permutations of 8, 4, 2, 1. In this case the artwork could easily have started on 10 or higher, the difference being here, is that the starting point chosen could be infinite as opposed to ‘Variations of incomplete open cubes’ above which is finite. Therefore in this case of infinity, the decision to limit the number of units in a progression seems to follow an aesthetic as well as practical decision[31], for in terms of the infinite, where do you start and stop, finite verses infinite progressions.

In contrast to the infinite representation, on a grand scale, is John Simon, with his artwork entitled ‘Every Icon’ 1997.

 

Every Icon 1997

 

‘Every Icon’ automatically generates every possible permutation of black and white squares on a 32*32 grid[32]. In this case the artwork is a representation of all possible outcomes from a pre-set closed plan, though the time scale of the piece will range over hundreds of trillion years before all possible images will have been generated. Whether an image at any one time is of any value to us at our present time is doubtful though this does offer the concept of images that move into and out of our consciousness both past, present and future which are recognisable and cultural value laden. But the fact remains that every possible outcome can be generated (though it probably never will due to it’s time length) from this establishment of rigorously defined parameters. What the above artwork demonstrates is that even through a simple set of predefined rules a high level of complexity can ensue.

 

What is the necessity to illustrate all possible permutations from a pre-set plan?

Permutations of a given plan can be presented in two differing methods, either through the representation of all possible outcomes within a single artwork, as with Lewitt[33], or in contrast to this each outcome being an artwork in itself, as with Donald Judd[34].

Whether all permutations are illustrated within one artwork (Sol Lewitt) or through a series of artworks (Donald Judd), the necessity to create or finish the complete plan illustrates the artists wishes that the works are not whole until they exhaust all known possible alternatives[35]. This is best illustrated through Lewitt’s ‘Variations on three different kinds of cubes’ which was initially thought to be finished or ‘whole’ in 1967 only to be found that certain permutations had be left out several years later. Upon this Lewitt completed the work in 1974.

 

‘…what was important was that viewers intuitively realized that something other than personal choice was operative’[36]. (Colpitt, F. J. 1997, pp. 64)

 

In contrast to the presentation of all permutations, Lewitt has on occasion exhibited incomplete works derived from sequential plans, notably ‘Two open modular cubes/half-off’ 1972. In this Lewitt does not attempt to show all known permutations of a series but to illustrate ‘the most poignant (simple, basic, intelligible)’[37] (LEWIS, B. et al, 1989, pp. 19). In this case, Lewitt seeks to ‘…suggest, implies or points to the central idea of the whole series’[38] (Colpitt, F. J. 1997, pp. 64). which is the mathematic system underlying the work. Hence from this it is the seriality in itself which is both the generating force behind the piece[39] and the conceptual basis for the work itself. Instead of fully representing the full series, the work implies the concept of seriality. The object clarifies the idea.[40]

 

‘The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it doesn’t look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing.’[41]. (Lewitt. S, 1967, pp. 835)

 

In this regard, Lewitt held that the aesthetic appeal of the artwork was not the central theme of the work, stating that ‘What the work looks like isn’t too important’[42] (Lewitt. S, 1967, pp. 834). Hence it is the process of conception and realisation that are central issues that the artist is concerned with.

Interactive Art

 

Democracy and Control

 

‘Each viewer will create a new and different work depending on their involvement, understanding, and transformation into a position of power.’[43]. (Molina, A, 1998, pp. 94)

 

This new and increasingly prominent art form is based around spectator interaction with the final artwork (in some cases in early production as well), in this sense the spectator decides on their own level of interaction/movement (amount of which depends on the artwork) and reacts physically as well as mentally to the artwork[44].

Art now allows the active participation of the viewers in regulating the artwork[45] in the final presentational stage, hence the viewer is given a degree, or greater degree, of control in what they visually perceive in the art. In return the artist no longer creates autonomously but through a  now radical shift begins to give up control of the work[46]. The potential of the interactive medium allows for the empowerment of the spectator as opposed to the artist[47], this therefore opens up a new role for the artist. ‘The viewer can now metaphorically cast a vote which influences the state of the piece at any given moment’[48]. (Molina, A, 1998, pp. 97)

Through the use of technologies that allow for the creation of artworks which provide or allow expression through individual participation, an audience’s choice can help to shape or democratise the experience of the artwork, especially given that the artwork can be seen as incomplete without audience participation[49]. It has been argued that the new art form of interaction art is an ‘…artistic embodiment of the 1^st amendment of democracy in government’[50], hence the viewer casts a vote in the outcome or presentation of the artwork. This freedom to vote on an artwork’s image or presentation offers a greater level of individual freedom for the viewer, ‘…an expression of individual freedom’[51] (Popper, F. 1975. pp. 23), so much so that the viewer can decided to utilise the ultimate method of expression, and not participate or vote in an artwork[52].

 

Within an interactive artwork, participants can observe or intervene in differing ways, this allows for a combination of differing degrees of personal involvement in the work and hence different levels and types of interaction. From the continual changing of the outcomes of the artwork through the differing degrees and manners of interaction, the artwork can be argued to be a composition of the different interactions, hence the interaction shapes the artwork. It can be seen from this that the work is no longer  a singular object to be contemplated but evolves other time through the joint activity of the artist and the viewer[53]. For each viewer the artwork takes on a new presentation depending on the interaction taken, the artwork is therefore continuously changing and renewing itself, in this context the work is akin to a stage play or a musical score, for the artwork is now a performance and the viewer is a performer. This coupled with the artwork being ‘considered as a composition of degree and manner of control, then the viewer becomes participant and performer.

 

‘…where reflection and individual involvement are permitted, the participant is empowered with a sense of ownership of the artwork, encourages understanding and appreciation.’[54] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 1)

 

At the initial stage of the interaction with the artwork, a viewer’s sense of control and power is going to be limited through lack of experience, but as the experience of an individual work grows so does the viewer’s awareness of their power increase. From each interaction with an artwork, a new presentation is given by the work through the understanding and involvement of the viewer and hence the transformation of power from the artwork to the viewer[55].

 

‘…interaction is a case of freedom and limitation, of the personal and collective search for establishing and voluntarily accepting codes of behaviour.’[56] (Shanken. E. A. , 1997)

 

Interactive art now changes the traditional way that the viewer views the artwork, the viewer now has the option of passive viewing as well as active participation[57]. Passive viewing though can be seen to be active viewing but through the choice of non participation. From this the former act of passive viewing has now been acknowledged through the emergence of participatory viewing.

 

From the above, interactive art is seen to be a source of increased freedom to the viewer, but there are limits to this freedom for it is neither total nor absolute but through negotiation[58], a course of defining what and how the individual can interact with the work, the search for defining ‘…acceptable codes of behaviour’[59] (Shanken. E. A. , 1997). Interaction in this sense is through defined limitation where only such viewer actions can create a response from the artwork and acknowledged by the viewer as a correct method of interaction, random elements having been removed[60].

Unlimited possibilities having been removed, the interaction is through limitations, or defined possible outcomes, for through limitations meaning comes to the work, limitless being boundless[61].

 

Artist – Framework, Spectator – Presenter

 

‘…the interactive artists designs a framework that contains the potential for the creative experience of the participant.’[62] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 4)

What is inherent with interactive art is the increased responsibility of the viewer within the exhibition framework of the artwork. The viewer no longer reacts passively but actively as well, in some artworks, active participation is a requirement to see the art at all[63]. In cases like this, prior to viewers conscious choices, the only element of the artwork that existed was the artist prepared space or materials both containing the potential for the artwork[64] for at this point the artwork is awaiting the interaction of the viewer, as Sita Popat has contested, the ‘…art does not exist until that interaction takes place’[65] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 2). In this method of art production the viewer, through conscious choices, is now involved with the creation of the artwork as well as it’s following conscious experiences. In the work of Miroslaw Rogala, the viewer now becomes an ‘…active participant in regulating the qualities of the work.’[66] (Shanken. E. A. , 1997)

Indeed it has been noted that the framework is only a means to an end and the ‘artwork develops by itself through the interaction of the visitors and the inherent evolutionary process of the work’[67]. The artist has now no longer complete control of the work, but has now given up control of the presentation of the final image, the public now bears the responsibility for what it sees[68]. Miroslaw has stated similarly that through the empowerment of the viewer comes a greater amount of responsibility  from the power that is wielded[69]. Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau have developed this further in stating that through a viewers interaction, the viewer now becomes part of the artwork. In this sense the artwork has become a living organism and will only develop through by the visitors personality in conjunction with the artwork.

Taking this further, Frank Popper  has posited the idea that in some cases the viewer completely determines the entire aesthetic process of the art through the empowerment they gain, with the artist holding the simple role of the intermediary for a proposition and the viewer assuming a personal engagement[70].

 

‘…where the locus of control is with the audience completely, the audience member or participant must make choices in order to see any performance at all. Without choices being made, the initial image will be all that the viewer sees.’[71] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 2)

 

It is evident from this that the relationship between the viewer and the artist has now moved through a significant shift where the artist now creates the framework for the artwork, instead of the completed product, which contains the potential for the physical interaction and hence the creativity of the viewer. Both the artist and the viewer now have a greater understanding of each other through the medium, the artwork itself.

Some artworks or art projects (Miroslaw Rogala’s ‘Electronic Garden’ 1996, and Sita Popat’s ‘Hands-On Dance Project’ 2000) have now taken this one step further through engaging with the potential viewer in the planning and production stages of the project. Thus now as the viewer begins to bring to the project their own ideas the differentiation between the viewer and the artist begins to blur. Both Hans Peter Schwarz and Jeffrey Shaw have argued to keep the distinction between the artist and the viewer emphasising that the artist is the instigator of the proposition while the viewer plays/performs with the proposition[72].

 

Whether or not such interactive works can be fully regarded as truly interactive in regards of a reciprocal behaviour between the artwork and the viewer or as participatory artworks, could be established from the final exhibition of the works and the public interaction/participation that occurs. Simply fulfilling the given – known by the artist - outcomes of an artwork may not be completely interactive but participatory, though unknown emergent behaviours by the viewers through the artwork can lead to a greater reciprocal interactive behaviour. In this sense it is the behaviour during exhibition that could determine whether a work is participatory or interactive.

Conclusion

 

 

The basis of this text has been to draw together two differing methods for the production of art and to create a synthesis that allows for an element of participation within painting/sculpture.

 

The text has so far concentrated on the reductive element of Minimalism and the participatory element of Interactive art. These areas may be separated by time and context, but the reductive element in Minimalism can be advanced further towards the removal of the artist and the addition of the viewer as the aesthetics controller.

Minimalism necessity to remove all inessential detail leads to a clarifying effect towards the context that the work is drawn from, but how far can this process proceed. Further reductions will undoubtedly be taken whereby the artwork is greater clarified to a singular core, or a more detailed analysis, but how far can the artists’ own subjective be replaced by the objective, is the artists inessential to some degree?

 

The point at which this becomes most visible is in the construction of permutations of a given plan. So far this text has mentioned the procedure of presenting all permutations or presenting a few permutations, this therefore resolves to a limited definable set plan (present all) as well as a possible infinite plan (present a few). In terms of presenting all permutations the plan has to be small enough so that all permutations are easily viewable (i.e. does not run into thousands) or if large then the permutations are viewed in an automatic sequence or randomly through a computer. In either case the artist has decided which to show and when. It is at this stage that the question of ‘can the artist be removed from the selection/presentation stage, in regards to legitimation?’ arises.

 

Why would the artist wish to be removed from this stage of the process? In view to the presentation of which permutation to present, there is no legitimating cause to validate one permutation over another, this follows from the delegitimation of Metanarratives. This is contrary to Lewitt’s view of presenting a few permutations and implying a serial plan to the viewer. For unless the permutations  of Lewitt explicitly show sections of a plan or indicate a series they could be unrelated and imply no plan. Considering how the artist cannot utilise a legitimising cause over the presentation of permutations, in the sense that aesthetics do not play a role in which to present, which follows that the artist is not in control of this particular variable (legitimation), the artist can be seen to be inessential to the artwork. Taking this further, it is the removal of the artist’s subjectivity in view to the presentational stage of the process.

 

There is now left a vacuum within the artwork of how to present the permutations of  set plan with the reduction of the artist. Control of this stage has to be taken by another party.

 

As has been argued above, Interactive arts present the viewer(s) with a degree of restricted control within an artwork, this may be in the performance/exhibition of the artwork or in some cases the planning as well as the performance/exhibition. In this sense the viewer is in control of what they see.

 

Cannot the participatory element of Interactive arts be referenced in view to permutations of serial art?

 

So taking from interactive arts the concept of the artist creating the framework and the spectator completing the artwork through their interaction, this can be utilised within the presentation of permutations within serial art. The artist continues to create the basis for their art through the defining of a set mathematical plan and the permutations that it can produce, but it is at this point that the artist now differs in their procedure. The artwork is now constructed in view to it comprising of a framework for the viewer to complete and not the artist themselves. The viewer now gains a degree of control on which permutation to view and, in contrary to ‘Every Icon’ above illustrating every permutation for 1/100^th of a second, for how long to view the permutation.

 

The control that is given to the viewer is that of aesthetics, for in terms of Lewitt statement ‘What the work looks like isn’t too important’[73] (Lewitt. S, 1967, pp. 834), this continues to be true. The permutation that the viewer presents isn’t the central theme of the work, but the presentation of a mathematical plan with its permutations. The artwork continues to illustrate all possible permutations of a given set plan, though the difference now being, one is show at a time through the viewers choice, for the viewer takes control of the artwork in terms of what they view.

 

So from the gradual reductionism inherent in Minimalism, the subjectivity of the artist has been further removed first with the addition of Mathematics and now the viewer.

Just like mathematics being a tool of serial art, so is the viewer.