Thursday, February 5, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Response to "paragraphs on conceptual art" by Sol Lewitt
At first, I thought the essay was a little vague, but by the end I managed to get a clearer idea of what Lewitt seems to be trying to get at. The bulleted sentences at the end really helps clear things up, even though there are some contradictions. Example: #16 says that "if words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they are art and not literature; numbers are not mathematics" but the last sentence states that "these sentences comment on art, but are not art). Is this an oversight, or did Lewitt simplify his view on words as art into a single catch-all for the purpose of the essay? Maybe the way the words are communicated factor into if they can be considered art; the words Lewitt used are not art because they appeared as magazine articles, but maybe if an artist were to project the same words on the side of a building, he would consider it art?
To me, it seemed like the way Lewitt describes conceptual art is more like a different way to view art, rather than a whole seperate part of art, or art-making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)