Do the eyes have it?
I don’t claim to know much about art, but it seems like these things have absolutely nothing to do with one another beyond shapes and colors. Is that what Sol Lewit was intending with her art? Is that the “art” of her art? If not, it seems like your premise is quite flawed. If so, your argument ignores (or at least downplays) what might be at the core of all the other artists’ work, doesn’t it? As a critic, if a museum person put all of these things in a room together and claimed one originating source from which all the other work flowed, wouldn’t it be your job to call bull pucky on such a facile reading and dumb show? As a blogger acting as an art historian, isn’t it our job as readers to call bull pucky on your purely visual reduction of these diverse and perhaps infinitely more complex works? Are you saying that if I look at all these works and see a connection to Sol Lewitt I will understand them? What if they have nothing to do with her work beyond the visual? Arrrgggh! Art is hard.
To Sandy. Art isn’t that hard. I think what these artists have in common is that they all work with some kind of grid. I think Regina put them up because they’re all flashy instead of stern and minimal. Who knows? I find them pleasurable to look at, and for me, that’s enough.
I like the idea of a visual essay, but this is only a very superficial collection of images that only speak of the lack of knowledge and superficiality of the person who compiled it. Diminishes Sol and diminishes the alleged “followers”. It is a shame that articles like this get so much divulgation on the web, considering the mount of good stuff on the net.
Just an FYI to sandy–Sol Lewitt was a man.And the powerful show the Lewitt photo was taken from is a large scale (one entire building, several floors) show at Mass MOCA in North Adams, MA that will be up for 10-20 years. Worth a visit and be sure to take a tour to learn how he worked and what he was getting at.
Maybe people are trying to look too deeply into this. I see a celebration of colour, form, and shape. Sol LeWitt did pave a way (not to say “the” way or that others didn’t also) for more art of this kind. Therefore, in art-history-lite, I see a formal nod in his direction in the work she shows below his piece.
I don’t see anything being diminished here. What I get out of these posts is one person’s perspective and visual connections.
When you look at Sol LeWitt, what are your visual connections? Everyone is going to have a different story, isn’t that kind of awesome?
Genealogy? This isn’t a genealogy, Olive. I think she’s saying that Sol Lewitt raised interest in grids, and the artists she listed are benefiting from that, if they are. Are they? I’m an artist working in abstraction, and I don’t feel abstraction is in the limelight. I do think putting these artists together in a show would be dynamite. Seeing as how Regina’s a critic and not a curator, I would expect her to justify these choices, not just asset them.
Hi everybody. Thanks for the responses. I’m using this blog as a notebook. While it includes reviews, it also includes visual musings and asides. I gathered these images because I wanted to see them together. No genealogy was intended, although I think Sol LeWitt is the major figure here. I could write about them and their divergent relationships but haven’t yet. Regina
these resemblances are mostly based in morphography, not history. barry mcgee, for instance, was an innovator of mission school style work in san francisco, and they had very little to do with sol lewitt and his conceptual practices. i’m kind of appalled at the ignorance of this lineage.
Why don’t people focus on art that actually takes talent instead of racking their brains over something that can be composed with the help of a simple ruler? Realist art – that takes talent. Bouguereau, Le Blaas, these people have talent – it’s worhty contemplating how they achieved their masterpieces.
I have no artistic talent and yet if I had the time and desire, I could replicate LeWitt stuff. Of course no one would care because my name isn’t Lewitt….
He is the tide on which all these boats rise.
blog | AJBlog Central | Contact me | Advertise | Follow me: 
Do the eyes have it?
I don’t claim to know much about art, but it seems like these things have absolutely nothing to do with one another beyond shapes and colors. Is that what Sol Lewit was intending with her art? Is that the “art” of her art? If not, it seems like your premise is quite flawed. If so, your argument ignores (or at least downplays) what might be at the core of all the other artists’ work, doesn’t it? As a critic, if a museum person put all of these things in a room together and claimed one originating source from which all the other work flowed, wouldn’t it be your job to call bull pucky on such a facile reading and dumb show? As a blogger acting as an art historian, isn’t it our job as readers to call bull pucky on your purely visual reduction of these diverse and perhaps infinitely more complex works? Are you saying that if I look at all these works and see a connection to Sol Lewitt I will understand them? What if they have nothing to do with her work beyond the visual? Arrrgggh! Art is hard.
I thought it was the Francis Celentano effect
To Sandy. Art isn’t that hard. I think what these artists have in common is that they all work with some kind of grid. I think Regina put them up because they’re all flashy instead of stern and minimal. Who knows? I find them pleasurable to look at, and for me, that’s enough.
I like the idea of a visual essay, but this is only a very superficial collection of images that only speak of the lack of knowledge and superficiality of the person who compiled it. Diminishes Sol and diminishes the alleged “followers”. It is a shame that articles like this get so much divulgation on the web, considering the mount of good stuff on the net.
Just an FYI to sandy–Sol Lewitt was a man.And the powerful show the Lewitt photo was taken from is a large scale (one entire building, several floors) show at Mass MOCA in North Adams, MA that will be up for 10-20 years. Worth a visit and be sure to take a tour to learn how he worked and what he was getting at.
I occasionally enjoy these visual connectors but this one really feels forced. You’ve created a false genealogy.
Maybe people are trying to look too deeply into this. I see a celebration of colour, form, and shape. Sol LeWitt did pave a way (not to say “the” way or that others didn’t also) for more art of this kind. Therefore, in art-history-lite, I see a formal nod in his direction in the work she shows below his piece.
I don’t see anything being diminished here. What I get out of these posts is one person’s perspective and visual connections.
When you look at Sol LeWitt, what are your visual connections? Everyone is going to have a different story, isn’t that kind of awesome?
Genealogy? This isn’t a genealogy, Olive. I think she’s saying that Sol Lewitt raised interest in grids, and the artists she listed are benefiting from that, if they are. Are they? I’m an artist working in abstraction, and I don’t feel abstraction is in the limelight. I do think putting these artists together in a show would be dynamite. Seeing as how Regina’s a critic and not a curator, I would expect her to justify these choices, not just asset them.
Hi everybody. Thanks for the responses. I’m using this blog as a notebook. While it includes reviews, it also includes visual musings and asides. I gathered these images because I wanted to see them together. No genealogy was intended, although I think Sol LeWitt is the major figure here. I could write about them and their divergent relationships but haven’t yet. Regina
Vasarely could also go in the notebook.
these resemblances are mostly based in morphography, not history. barry mcgee, for instance, was an innovator of mission school style work in san francisco, and they had very little to do with sol lewitt and his conceptual practices. i’m kind of appalled at the ignorance of this lineage.
Why don’t people focus on art that actually takes talent instead of racking their brains over something that can be composed with the help of a simple ruler? Realist art – that takes talent. Bouguereau, Le Blaas, these people have talent – it’s worhty contemplating how they achieved their masterpieces.
I have no artistic talent and yet if I had the time and desire, I could replicate LeWitt stuff. Of course no one would care because my name isn’t Lewitt….