Rosalind Krauss makes a good case for reevaluating the meaning of Sol LeWitt's work. She takes on the accepted interpretation as well as three individuals in particular. Bold. What's funny is that her chapter could be summarized (less eloquently, of course) by saying: LeWitt isn't representing rational thought, he's just doing the same dumb think over and over. This is the kind of response one might expect from a layperson. Bravo to her. Frankly I found the writing and concepts clear, and the points salient. I really have to dig for questions with this one.
Q1: Can't the case be made that LeWitt's repetitious figures represent something more naturalistic? Floor Piece #4, for example, is reminiscent of cells, or a beehive. Natural order.
Q2: Do the concpets of rationality and Mind not include repitition, or the spelling out of axiomatic notions? Those same axioms were arrived at through repititous experiements and/or mathematical fussing. It was probably even compulsive, obsessional and, as she says, finicky. She's being a bit black and white, isn't she?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment