Specific Objects

Michael Fried “Art and Objecthood” Artforum, vol. V no.10 June 1967, pp.12-23.

Michael Fried is an art historian and a modernist art critic, Fried’s position is that Minimalist art has taken an ‘ideological position’ (Art and Objecthood, 12) as mere object, in which Fried has coined as holding the position of “Objecthood”. This is seen as a betrayal to the modernist investigation of medium. Art and Objecthood is written as a rebuttal to Donald Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’ 1965. The theatricality of Specific Objects to Fried seemed to mar the viewer’s aesthetic experience.

Donald Judd looks to create art that holds a place of non-reference. In response to modernisms continuous referencing of medium painting “Specific Objects” discards the two dimensional for three and furthermore distances itself from referencing medium by occupying a space as an object. These objects aim to hold their own place as neither sculpture nor painting. Judd’s concept aims to function on its own without the need for allusion.

Paintings inability to escape the allusion to pictorial illusion in addition to its reliance on the rectangular frame limit paintings endeavour to further itself (such as Malevich’s compositions). “Anything on a surface has space behind it. Two colors on the same surface almost always lie on different depths. An even color, especially in oil paint, covering all or much of a painting is almost always both flat and infinitely spatial.” (Donald Judd: Early Work, 1955-1968).

Now in a state of exhaustion, Non-art must take painting and sculptures place. Craft must be eliminated; the hand must not be evident. The claim that there could be a limited amount of content to put onto a canvas is absurd. Judd’s theory of ‘Specific Objects’ suggests that there are limited arrangements in the two dimensional surface. It certainly could make sense if it can be isolated in the minimalist period where artist explored medium and moved away from pictorial concerns. Objecthood to me seems to be reactionary as faith in painting waivered. 

Fried, Michael Art and Objecthood Artforum, vol. V no.10 June 1967, pp.12-23.

Kellein, Thomas Donald Judd: Early Work, 1955-1968, New York: D.A.P., 2002.

Originally published in Arts Yearbook 8, 1965.

Whats missing?

Thierry de Duve “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” (1994), Theory in contemporary art Since 1945, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, pp 19-31.

This text is written by Thierry de Duve in 1994. Thierry de Duve is a philosopher, art critic and art historian. One of the issues this text deals with is the role of the art schools and its approach to educating artists.

How do we educate the current artists? Should art schools influence artists to be concept driven, inventive, theory based or to provide technical skills? What’s missing? 

One of the concerns with using the academy model is that it can be uninventive and bound by conditions of technique. If we aren’t able to or don’t possess the appropriate skills are artists improvising or compromising their practices?

For conceptual art to be materialised into art the artists must have some ability to manifest the idea into an object(s).When it comes to dealing with painting image or casting sculpture skill becomes part of the reading of the work. The academic model paired with the knowledge of theory aids in the ability to articulate concepts. ‘Thierry de Duve states “…all teachers know by experience that talent exists and creativity is a myth.”(When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond 23).

Art schools possess a tendency to pursue the Black Mountain utopian ideals; ideals about a pure art uncorrupted by commercial influences. The pretence that the art market doesn’t exist would be misleading and potentially disadvantaging for studying artists. When they leave the safety of art school the art world as they have known it will be completely different. Money in art school has become a dirty topic along with the use of traditional techniques.

A project in Germany at Berlin’s Universität der Künste has been taken up to free artists from the usual space of the university. Olafur Eliasson has negotiated his students to work in his studio describing; “…the tradition of sequestering students in an academy as ‘dogmatic, static and conservative’ and believes the learning environment doesn’t have to be a ‘cocoon’; he wants his school to be ‘closer to the street, closer to reality’.”(Frieze, Open Studio. 2008)

In a Frieze art fair discussion Saskia Bos states “…..art schools provide conditions for risk taking and research that museums catering to ever broadening constituencies have difficulty matching.” (Frieze Art Fair, Theory and Practice: Art Education Today. 2007). Protection from the need for consumerism provides a ‘safe’ place to trail and contemplate work; works that could potentially be unsuccessful in a gallery or museum setting.

Thierry de Duve asks where the meeting of the two trains of thought is. Do we look back to the academy for training in skill or are we just clinging to some sort or romantic notion of the past? It could be that in order for us to convey our new concepts we need to find some compromise between trained skill and conceptual practice. Provide the skills; cognitive and technical and then facilitate the discussions so that artists can hit the ground running when they leave the safety of art school.

de Duve, Thierry “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” (1994), Theory in contemporary art Since 1945, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, pp 19-31.

Lange, Christy. “Frieze.“ Open Studio. Issue 18 October 2008. [accessed 2/04/11] http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/open_studio/

Rugoff, Ralph et al. Frieze Art Fair. 2007. Theory and Practice: Art Education Today Podcast [online]. [accessed 1/04/11]. http://www.friezeartfair.com/podcasts/details/theory_practice_art_education_today/)