1) The reading identifies an idea that LeWitt's work represents pure intelligibility as his goal, but it is later described as design without reason or as design spinning out of control, and even contradictory in a sense. How can it be seen as intelligible as a goal if it has no purpose or is conflicting in itself?
2) The stone-in-the-pocket analogy seems like a good argument in the bulk of the reading, but then all of the sudden Kuspit decides that he "might perhaps achieve [his] purpose without increasing the number of pockets...or reducing the number of stones" (254). Somewhere in his stone argument, Kuspit must be contradicting LeWitt's Variation of Incomplete Open Cubes if he completely changes his perspecitve, right? What is the significance of this changing analysis of stones and pockets? What is the final conclusion that parallels LeWitt's artwork?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment