Rethinking Seriality in Minimalist Art Practices

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇Rethinking Seriality in Minimalist Art Practices范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

[a]School of Chinese Literature， Southwest University， Chongqing， China.

*Corresponding author.

Received 2 April 2015; accepted 14 June 2015

Published online 26 July 2015

Abstract

Seriality in one of the characterist of Minimalist works. It shows a visual order of “one thing after another”. However， we never think about issues related Minimalist seriality， such as the difference between modernism and Minimalism when thinking in series， the theoretical logic behind it， whether seriality is equal to repetition， and its aesthetic and social meanings. This essay rethinks the meaning of seriality in Minimalist art practices. It aims to reexamine the term “seriality” in both modernist and Minimalist practices， distinguish it from repetition and sameness and explore the reason for Minimalist artists thinking in series from both socio-political and aesthetic epistemological perspectives.

Key words： Seriality; Minimalism; Objecthood; Repetition

Zhou， Y. H. （2015）. rethinking seriality in minimalist art practices. Canadian Social Science， 11（7）， <Page>-0. Available from： http：///index.php/css/article/view/7277

DOI： http：///10.3968/7277

INTRODUCTION

Seriality as an artistic strategy is frequently used in Western art works. As Michael Fried explains， the concept of seriality came into prominence in Impressionist school with the exploration of a single motif through out a number of pictures， but which has come increasingly to have the function of providing a context of mutual elucidation for the individual paintings comprising a given series （Colpitt， 1993）. For example， Monet’s Haystacks and Rouen Cathedral paintings， which are often cited as modernist prototypes， are painted in series. In fact， artists paint in series， because this approach serves to clarify the individual works of art. In modernist paintings， seriality is also an artistic strategy and is popular among a great number of abstract painters， such as Mark Rothko， Kenneth Noland and Barnett Newman. They paint in hierarchic series in order to clarify the meanings of these paintings and encourage the viewers to contemplate their meanings. Working in a hierarchic and compositional serial mode was not reversed until the mid-1960s， when Minimalist artists produced works in non-hierarchic and non-compositional series. Minimalist artists emphasize working in a non-hierarchic mode to dismantle the individuality of each element in a series and structure various repetitive forms. These non-hierarchic serial modes can be easily seen in Minimalist works， such as the stripe paintings by Frank Stella， the repetitive boxes by Donald Judd， the wooden blocks by Carl Andre， the fluorescent lights by Dan Flavin， and the cubes by Sol LeWitt.

A number of terms can be used to describe the characteristics of the seriality in Minimalist practices， including literal， non-hierarchic， formal reductive， “objecthood” and repetitive. It is evident that Minimalist artists adopt the same strategy as modernist painters when thinking in series. But， what is the difference between modernism and Minimalism when thinking in series？ What is the theoretical logic behind it？ Is seriality equal to repetition？ How did this difference relate to the American social context in the postwar period including economic recovery， urbanization， industrial production and the development of the mass media？ Can this social context completely explain the serial modes in Minimalist practices in the 1960s？

The purpose of this essay is to reexamine the term “seriality” in both modernist and Minimalist practices， distinguish it from repetition and sameness and explore the reason for Minimalist artists thinking in series from both socio-political and aesthetic epistemological perspectives. In order to address these issues， the essay is divided into four sections. In the first section， I will discuss how modernist paintings are created by their arrangement in series. I will define the characteristics of modernist seriality by focusing on Barnett Newman and his painting the Station of the Cross. In the second section， I will discuss how Minimalist artists deal with seriality in their art creations. I will compare and contrast the works of Newman with Minimalist artists， such as Frank Stella and Donald Judd and Sol LeWitt， to point out the differences by analyzing how Minimalist artists explore the significance of seriality in their works. In the third section， I will rethink the issue of whether seriality is equal to repetition or sameness through analyzing several works of Donald Judd and Sol LeWitt. In the last section， from both sociopolitical and aesthetic epistemological perspectives， I will discuss why Minimalist artists pursued seriality in the 1960s.

1. BARNETT NEWMAN： COMPOSITIONAL AND HIERARCHIC SERIALITY

In 1966 Barnett Newman displayed his first American Museum show Barnett Newman： The Stations of the Cross： Lema Sabachthani in the Guggenheim Museum. In this exhibition， Newman showed his series of fourteen paintings titled the Stations of the Cross， which were painted with vertical stripes from the top edge to the bottom edge in different places on each canvas. These paintings were individually titled “First Station”， “Second Station” and “Third Station” until the fourteenth to suggest a serial mode which could structure viewers’ understanding of Jesus and the end of his life on the Cross. Newman invited viewers to view these works along the continually spiraling walls of the Guggenheim， because it architecturally structured a sense of hierarchy which could lead the viewers to view works step by step and contemplate the subject in order to experience the last hours of Jesus on the Cross （Figure 1）.

This empathic iconography of the Station of the Cross is not only for the viewers but also for the artist’s experience when painting this series. Newman explained in his interview in “Newsweek” after the exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum：

I tried to make the title a metaphor that describes my feeling when I did the paintings. It’s not literal， but a cue. In my work， each station was a meaningful stage in my own C the artist’s C life. It is an experience of how I worked. I was a pilgrim. （O’Neill， 1990） In other words， as a “pilgrim”， Newman composes signs with the stripes on canvases and invites the viewers to decode these signs in order to derive spiritual experiences. As Harold Rosenberg suggests， Newman’s painting is a way of practicing the sublime （Rosenberg， 1978， p.83）. In this sense， like all modernist painters， Newman’s works emphasize the aesthetic composition rather than literal objecthood. Besides， each painting in this series is shown individually as well as hierarchically， because none of the paintings in the series can explain the whole story of Jesus. That means if we miss one in this series， the story will be out of order. Therefore， the significance of a series derives from a hierarchic system （Alloway， 1995）. In this sense， Newman composes each element on his canvases in series in order to create a sense of hierarchy， and this hierarchy encourages viewers to contemplate the meanings behind the forms.

Figure 1

Barnett Newmanm， Barnett Newman： The Stations of the Cross： Lema Sabachthani， Guggenheim Museum， 1966

2. MINIMALIST ANTI-COMPOSITIONAL AND NON-HIERARCHIC SERIALITY

However， this hierarchic modeis reversed by Minimalist artists， such as Frank Stella， Donald Judd and Sol LeWitt. In 1959， Stella showed his Black Paintings in the exhibition “16 Americans” at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. James Meyer characterizes this exhibition as “the beginning of Minimalism” （James， 2000） He claims that Stella’s works announce a turning away from the painting of the previous generation （Ibid.）. Following the legacy of Newman’s work， Stella produced black stripes in thte series which were regularly separated by very thin pinstripes of unpainted canvas.According to Meyer， the Black Paintings showed the symmetrical format of Newman’s works （Ibid.， p.21）. But these stripes were different from Newman’s because he rejected Newman’s “grand allusion” （Ibid.）. Thus， Meyer points out that the Newman seeks to produce an art that transcends its objecthood and points to religious and mythical themes. Instead， Stella makes the experience of materialityC “the paint as paint， the canvas as canvas” （Ibid.）. In fact， Stella’s artistic view is embodied in the phrase he coined，“what you see is what you

see”.

In 1964， the Minimalist credo， “What you see is what you see”， praised the artist’s reduction of painting to its essential formal components. Indeed， as a minimalist， Stella emphasizes the literal rather than the representative meanings of painting. He treats paintings as objects and explores how to use a literalist view to minimize the significance of painting as well as the artist’s subjectivity. Therefore， repetitive stripes in Stella’s painting do not signify any meanings， but are merely literal stripes. In contrast to the hierarchic serial mode of Newman’s paintings， Stella’s stripes structure a non-hierarchic serial mode. In other words， Newman sought to create empathy between the viewers and paintings to represent the spiritual meanings of paintings through emphasizing hierarchic and aesthetic composition in his work. By contrast， Stella focuses on the non-hierarchic serial mode and unifies each element in this serial in order to make viewers to pay attention to the objecthood of his paintings （Figure 2）.

Figure 2

Frank Stella， a Sample of Stella’s Stripe Paintings， 1950s-1960s

Stella’s stripe painting influenced a group of Minimalist artists in the 1960s. One of them was Donald Judd. In 1965， Judd published his influential essay “Specific Object”. In this essay， Judd points out several important three dimensional characteristics of Stella’s painting （Judd， 2002）. He writes， “In Stella’s shaped paintings， the periphery and lines are correspond with each other; the stripes are nowhere near being discrete parts; and the surface is father from the wall than usual.” Thus， he indicates： “Since the surface is exceptionally unified and involves little or no space， the parallel plane is unusually distinct. The order is not rationalistic and underlying but is simply order，like that of continuity， one thing after another.” （Ibid.）. Judd’s observation suggests that Stella’s painting establishes a literalist point of view because he provides a simple and non-hierarchic order of different stripes on canvas without any composition. These stripes successfully represent modernist “form reduction”which is proposed by Clement Greenberg; meanwhile， they effectively deal with a contradiction of Greenbergian form reduction. The contradiction lies in the fact that， on the one hand， Greenberg believes that in modernist painting artists should pursue the flatness and purity of medium though “form reduction” . On the other hand， when a painting is in the logic of form reduction， it will eventually become the medium itself. That means this painting becomes an object. But Greenberg criticizes this. In his opinion， the objecthood in paintings is a kind of kitsch art as opposed to modernist high art （Greenberg， 1965）. Therefore， a contradiction lies between the purity of medium and the objecthood of medium. However， Stella’s painting bridges a gap between art and object and establishes a new format of art by using the logic of modernist form reduction. For Judd， Stella’s paintings are no longer two-dimensional works of art. Instead they establish a literalist view for the viewers to see paintings as objects in three-dimensional spaces.To this extent， are Stella’s paintings still paintings or sculptures？ Thus， Judd begins his essay with the sentences： “Half or more of the best new work in the last few years had been neither painting nor sculpture. Usually it has been related， closely or distantly， to one or the other.” （Judd， 2002） In fact， the essay “Specific Object” legitimizes blurring the boundaries between painting and sculptures in the mid-1960s. As James Meyer suggests， this essay marks the term “Minimalism” away from painting in favor of the three-dimensional object （James， 2000， p.28） According to Meyer， this is because Judd aspired to produce a high formalist art though extending the large-scale and simple shapes of abstract expressionism into three dimensions （James， c2000， p.4）. Thus， in the mid-1960s， Judd abandoned easel paintings， which he regarded as structured on a relational balancing of parts or a compositional hierarchy. Instead， he started to produce a series of reliefs to explore the objecthood in a three-dimensional space （Ibid.， p.29）.

Judd made his first “new three-dimensional work” in 1962， two years before his first solo exhibition held at the Green Gallery in New York. He built Untitled （DSS 29） from a red and black wooden rectangular frame that surrounds a four-foot-long black asphalt pipe， which vertically bisects a canvas in light cadmium red paint， wax， and sand （Figure 3） （Raskin， c2010， p.9）. This work seems to three-dimensionalize what Newman paints in the Station of the Cross， because both works have the same square frames and the same lines vertically connecting the top and bottom of their square canvas. Compared to Newman’s painting， Judd’s work not only three-dimensionalizes Newman’s gesture but also pursues a symmetrical， non-hierarchic and non-compositional literal formation as what Stella did in his stripe paintings.

Figure 3

Donald Judd， Untitled （DSS 29）， Green Gallery， New York， 1962

In 1966， Judd showed a pair of works， Untitled （DSS 85） and （DSS 86） in the “Primary Structure” exhibition at Jewish Museum （Figure 4）. The pair of works represented his literalist view of “one thing after another”. Each work has four 40X40X40 C inch galvanized iron cubes and an L-shaped cut to join the top and front surfaces. In this cut， Judd mounted a 190-inch long aluminum rectangular prism that joins the four units and the three 10-inch intervals dividing them （Ibid.， p.33） .Apparently， Judd tended to arrange these boxes in a serial mode by emphasizing repetitive and symmetric syntax of “one thing after another” （Figure 4）.

Figure 4

Donalad Judd， Untitled （DSS 85） and （DSS 86）， “Primary Structure” Exhibition， Jewish Museum， New York， 1966

3. SERIALITY IS NOT EQUAL TO REPETITION

This repetitive syntax does not merely exist in the works of Judd. In the 1960s， artists such as Sol LeWitt， Carl Andre and Dan Flavin， produced works in three-dimensional spaces， repeating each element in their series in order to resist composition. In this situation， we may wrongly assume that seriality is equal to repetition， because each element in a series has the same appearance and aesthetic function. This opinion can easily be challenged by carefully examining Judd’s horizontal progressions work for the wall， Untitled DSS 45 （1964） （Figure 5）.

Figure 5

Donald Judd， Untitled DSS 45， 1964

This work has four semi-cylinders that jut forward from a wide rectangular prism. At first glance， this work is in a symmetric form and each of the semi-cylinders has similar size to its neighbors. But Judd ran the piles from end to end， letting the additive arrangement narrow the gaps， which partnered the intensified symmetry of a given form with an internal planar asymmetry （Ibid.， p.20）. This work suggests that the seriality in Judd’s works is not merely a repetitive format. In fact， his practices from the 1970s apparently displayed asymmetric formats， and three of Judd’s works， Untitled DSS 233 （1970）， Untitled Bernstein 89-13 （1989） and Untitled DSS 224（1970）， extended his artistic gesture in pursuing asymmetric and progression formats. All of them were characterized by several boxes sticking to a prism which attached to the wall. Even though they have the equal thickness， these boxes have different lengths. Additionally， the gaps between each box are also different in length.

Evidently， conceptualizing these works as series， we need to be quite sure that serialty is not equal to repetition. But what does seriality mean if it is not equal to repetition？ In order to understand Judd’s progression sequence， we should understand seriality as a mathematic pattern. Judd’s horizontal progressions display three different metrics of shape and gap （Ibid.）. One of Judd’s patterns uses the Fibonacci series and has the following logic sequence： 1.2.3.4.8.13.21（Untitled DSS 233） （Ibid.）. A second has a reversal pattern in which the shapes double in length in one direction while the gaps in between double in the opposite（Untitled Bernstein 89-13） （Ibid.） . In the third type， the shapes and gaps work in opposite directions by using inverse natural numbers in a succession of subtractions and additions， 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7-1/8+1/9-1/10（Untitled DSS 224） （Ibid.）. For Judd， mathematical progressions provided asymmetrical order without composition in the traditional and relational manner of modernist paintings. In this sense， seriality is not equal to repetition but is profoundly associated with the logic of mathematic progression.

In addition to Judd， Sol LeWitt is another typical practitioner using mathematic pattern. In 1973， he started literally to take the cubes apart by asking how many variations would be shown by systematically subtracting parts from a skeletal cube. Therefore， he worked through the artistic process and idea for months， and concluded with 122 variations of incomplete skeletal cubes. This concept was shown in his Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes in 1974 （Figure 6）. It is a modular structure composed of 122 skeletal structural units， and each unit is ordered in terms of a numerical progression of the missing edges from eleven edges to three edges （Kruass， c1985 p.246）. In this work， LeWitt uses a mathematic schema to calculate the possibilities of the missing edges in a skeletal cube and invited the viewers to supply the missing edges mentally and experience the tension between the literally unfinished but mentally finished cubes （Ibid.）. In this sense， LeWitt pursued seriality in this works though creating a geometric emblem with cubes.

Figure 6

Sol LeWitt， Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes， 1974

4. RETHINKING SERIALITY IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT

Both Judd and LeWitt designed their works in series， not in a repetitive format of “one thing after another”， but with a pattern of mathematic progression. In fact， in the 1960s most of Minimal artists were involved with seriality and produced numerous examples， including Morris’s gray polyhedrons， Flavin’s lights， Bell’s glass boxes， McCracken’s planks and Andre’s plates. But why did most of Minimalist artists pursue seriality in the 1960s as an artistic trend and why were they so obsessive in mathematical progression patterns？

From the socio-political perspective， Minimalism is a response to the development of economy， industrial production， urbanization and mass media in the postwar period. In his essay “The Crux of Minimalism”， Hal Foster explores the relationship between seriality and industrial production in depth. Based on Peter Buger’s theory of avant-garde， Foster considers Minimalism as a neo-avant-gardist gesture to resist both the high art of late modernism and the mass culture of advanced capitalism in the postwar period （Foster， 1996， p.30）. Indeed， Minimalist industrial objects produced in serial modes profoundly relates to the industrial mass production since the 1960s. As Foster claims， minimalism pointed to an order―“to work in a series， to serial production and consumption， to the socio-economic order of one-thing-after-another.” （Ibid.， p.62） Foster’s essay takes a socio-political perspective to examine the reason why Minimalist artists think in series when producing works of art.

However， there is a weakness in Foster’s argument. In my opinion， Foster oversimplifies and generalizes the reason for the Minimalist pursuit of seriality. At the end of his essay， “The Crux of Minimalism”， he indicates， “Somehow the new immanence of art with minimalism and pop is connected not only with the new immanence of critical theory （the poststructuralist shift from transcendental causes to immanent effects）， but also with the new immanence of North American capital in the 1960s.” （Ibid.， p.68）. Here， Foster tries to avoid discussing Minimalism from a philosophical perspective. Instead， he demonstrates the main interests of his essay are how to approach Minimalism from a socio-political perspective and how to concern Minimalism with the industrial reproduction in advanced capitalist society. Therefore， he does not examine the difference between Minimalist artists working in series and simply considers that seriality is equal to repetition by emphasizing Minimalist as a pursuit of socio-economic order of one thing after another. However，since 1970， Judd had been constantly reversing this phase by his practices in series and doing a number of works focusing on its mathematic progression， as we have discussed above， instead of reproducing each unit in a series one after another.In this sense， the seriality in Judd’s serial mode does not simply represent such social spectacle in the 1960s as industrial production and mass consumption. Therefore， it is not objective to explore the Minimalist pursuit of seriality from only one socio-political perspective.

creation.

This essay has reexamined the meaning of seriality in Minimalist art practices. Though comparing and contrasting the modernist and Minimalist ways of producing artworks in series，I argued that their difference lies in the different views of treating hierarchy and composition in their works of art. For modernist painting， artists pursue seriality in a hierarchic and compositional mode. By contrast， Minimalist artists pursue seriality in a non-hierarchic and non-compositional mode. However， this serial mode caused people to wrongly equate seriality with repetition and sameness. In this situation， I analyzed Judd’s works which were produced during the 1970s and argued that Judd’s seriality is based on mathematic progressions rather than simply repeating objects in a series. This observation can be used to explain Sol LeWitt’s practices as well. Therefore， for Minimalist artists， their pursuit of seriality is not equal to the pursuit of a repetitive objects or working manners. In this sense， seriality is not equal to repetition and sameness. In the final section of this essay， I argue that the reason for Minimalist artists’ thinking in seriality lies in two perspectives. One is the socio-political perspective. As Hal Foster argues in his essay， “The Crux of Minimalism”， thinking in series in the 1960s was a response to such social development as social economic， industrial production， urbanization and mass media in the postwar period. The other is the aesthetic epistemological perspective based on the development of postwar philosophy， such as structuralism， post-structuralism and system esthetics. In this sense， thinking in series in Minimalist art practices not only responses to the capitalist social order， but also provides a new linguistic mode to rethink about art， and this linguistic mode helps to establish a new aesthetic epistemology.

REFRERENCES

Alloway， L. （1995）. Systemic painting. In G. Battcock （Ed.）， Minimal art： Acritical anthology. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London： University of California Press.

Baker， K. （c1988）， Minimalism： Art of circumstance. New York： Abbeville Press.

Batchelor， D. （1997）. Minimalism. London： Tate Gallery Publishing.

Burnham， J. （1974）. Systems esthetic. Great western salt works： Essays on the meaning of post-formalist art. New York： G. Braziller.

Colpitt， F. （1993）. Minimal art： The critical perspective. Seattle： University of Washington Press.

Doss， E. （2002）. Twenty-century American art. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

Foster， H. （c1996）. The crux of minimalism. The return of the real： The avant-garde at the end of the century. Cambridge， Mass; London ： MIT Press.

Foster， H. （c2004）. Art since 1900： Modernism， anti-modernism， postmodernism. London; New York， NY： Thames & Hudson.

Fried， M. （1988）. Art and objecthood： Essays and reviews. Chicago; London： University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg， C. （1965）. Modernist painting. Art and culture： Critical essays. Boston： Beacon Press.

Greenberg， C. （1965）. Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Art and culture： Critical essays. Boston： Beacon Press.

Greenberg， C. （1986）. The collected essays and criticism. In J. O’Brian （Ed.）. Chicago： University of Chicago Press.

James， M. （2000）. Minimalism. London： Phaidon.

James， M. （c2001）. Minimalism： Art and polemics in the 1960s. New Haven， CT; London： YaleUniversity Press.

Judd， D. （2002）. Specific object. In H. Charles & P. Wood （Eds.）， Art in theory， 1900-2000： An anthology of changing ideas. Malden， Mass.; Oxford： Blackwell.

Kruass， R. （c1985）. LeWitt in Progress. In R. Kruass （Ed.）， The originality of the avant-garde and the other modernist myth. Cambridge， Mass; London： MIT Press.

Meltzer， E. （2006）. The dream of the information world. Oxford Art Journal， 29（1）， 117-135.

O’Neill， J. P. （1990）. Barnett Newman： selected writings and interviews. New York： Knopf： Distributed by Random House.

Owens， C. （1980）. The allegorical impulse： Toward a theory of postmodernism. Part 1&2. Journal of Art Historiography， October， 12， 67-86.

Raskin， D. （c2010）. Donald Judd. （New Haven， Conn.： Yale University Press.

Rosenberg， H. （1978）. Barnett Newman. New York： Abrams.

Shannon， J. （c2009）. The disappearance of objects： New York art and the rise of the postmodern city. New Haven; London： Yale University Press.