frank stella was an american painter bornin massachusetts. he graduated with a degree in history from princeton university, beforemoving to new york in 1958. at this time in america, abstract expressionwas huge. jackson pollock had a 4-page spread in life magazine, and he was most known forhis ‘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 otherabstract 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 expressiveuse of paint. instead he was drawn to the “flatnessâ€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 statedthat the pictures were “a flat surface with paint on it - nothing more†stella’s work culminated in a series ofblack paintings. now when you first see the work, you mightbe 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 thickerthan 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 littlecold 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. butyou’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 “regulatedpattern†that forced "illusionistic space
out of the painting at a constant rate." the precisely delineated black stripes intendedto emphasize the flatness of the canvas and really force the audience to realize and acknowledgethe canvas as a flat surface with paint on it. this was important because it is in directopposition with a really widely held belief that painting is a window into the three-dimensionalspace. paintings reflected things of the real world. this was an idea that dominated sincethe renaissance. the thicker than conventional canvases, reallyemphasised the object-ness, as opposed to the thinner, more window-like quality of conventionalcanvases.
and this apparent materiality - of paint andcanvas being just paint and canvas - as opposed to a more representational or illusionisticimage - blurred the boundaries between painting and sculpture. this would become a pattern we see in a groupof artists that, after several different names, would later be known as the minimalists. theywould also use non-art materials such as plywood, scrap metal, and fluorescent light bulbs. they were characterized by unitary, geometricforms and industrial materials. it was a cool anonymity that contrasts withthe 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 ofself-expressionism and illusions - no signs of the artist’s hand or thought processor aesthetic decisions. the minimalists' emphasis on eradicating signsof 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 interactionwith it. by the late 1960s, minimalism began to showsigns of breaking apart. a lot of the artists were moving on to different ideas, and itwas also receiving a lot of criticism from people who thought it wasn’t the right directionto go in to.
the most important of these would be michaelfried's essay "art and objecthood," published in artforum in 1967. in it, he wrote aboutthe importance of the movement as a turning point in modern art, but he also wrote abouthow he was uncomfortable with what it meant. for him, these artists were not so much creatinga work of art, as much as a political and/or ideological statement about the nature ofart. just because you arrange non-art objects ina 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 severaldifferent branches. and it has a great legacy
for the movements that would follow, put underthe greater umbrella of "post-minimalism" art. there was the “light and space†movementin california. land art became more popular all over us. eccentric abstraction, and otherdevelopments were in direct response to the problems that minimalism posed. minimalism seemed to be one of those thingsthat had to be done. someone had to push it all the way. but it also was scary because they’re nogoing further from there. what do you guys think? i hope you guys enjoyed this video. this minimalismvideo 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 isbetween 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.comthere will be one that accompanies this very video about franz klein, and his life andwork. thanks so much for watching, i’ll see youguys next time.
