Rosalind Krauss talks about how Suzi Gablik relates the history of art to the human development. Gablik breaks art into three categories: visual representation, mastery of perspective, and abstraction. She says that abstraction is the most complex and most complete development in art, but I wonder if art can be reasoned in this way to say that visual representation is less intellectual than abstract art. I don't think abstract art is a more complex progression rather that it is different in technique and opposes the art era before them. All art cannot be easily put into these three categories and conform to this "human development" idea.
In the beginning of Krauss' article, she seems to relate LeWitt's art to math and how his 122 Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes seem to represent "the illustration of Mind [and] the demonstration of rationalism itself". But later she says that it cannot be related to an algebraic expression because it does not summarize with the first couple of terms, rather it is "composed of a string of almost identical details, connected by 'and'. She also says that the work "counters 'the look of thought,' particularly if thought is understood as classical expression of logic.'" Is she saying that if logic follows algebraic expression and LeWitt's work does not reflect an expression, then it does not illustrate the rationalization of the mind? How come I still see the work as a series? It has a pattern yet it is random in the fact that you don't know what the next variation is going to be, but an idea that it will look like a cube.
