In the reading the author asks the question of what could be the possible representation of Lewitt's art work. And the answer given was that they are representation of the Mind. I thought this was weird when I read it, because to me, all art work is generated by the human mind. The art work must have been something the artist has thought of before producing. The thinking process when producing the art object to me represents the working of the "Mind." My thought about what Lewitt's art might represent is his interest in geometry and mathematics. My questions is, how is it fair to say that Lewitt's art is the "illustration of Mind" when most of his art is just repetition, or structures built from a single building block? How is this an illustration of the mind, why isn't a painting considered an illustration of mind?
On page 696 writes "Visual reality no longer has a privileged status with relation to the work of art, no longer forms the text which art is to illustrate. Now it is logic the constitutes the "text"; and the space onto which the art is now to open, the model it is to "picture" and by which it is to be tested is Mind." For some reason, this reminded my experiences doing experimental research for my psychology class, where I had to look at different abstract object in a limited amount of time and decide what I see, and the relation to the previous object. In my opinoin, the art created by Lewitt, tests his own mind more than the observers of the art. I wonder, if it was Lewitt's goal to created this testing of the mind of his viewers? Besides completing the cube, what else are we suppose to get from this type of arts?