Where to Read Sol Lewitt Paragraphs on Conceptual Art 1967

The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding "the notion that the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized critic." This should be proficient news to both artists and apes. With this balls I hope to justify his conviction. To continue a baseball metaphor (1 artist wanted to hitting the ball out of the park, some other to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself.

I WILL REFER TO THE KIND of fine art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the about of import aspect of the piece of work. * When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, information technology means that all of the planning and decisions are fabricated beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory thing. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, information technology is involved with all types of mental processes and information technology is purposeless. It is usually gratuitous from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. Information technology is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual fine art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want information technology to go emotionally dry. At that place is no reason to suppose however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is but the expectation of an emotional kick, to which ane conditioned to expressionist fine art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this fine art.

* In other forms of art the concept may exist changed in the process of execution.

Conceptual fine art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real intent of the creative person to lull the viewer into the conventionalities that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such equally logic vs. illogic). * The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously unproblematic. Successful ideas by and large have the advent of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of idea the artist is free to even surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.

* Some ideas are logical in conception and illogical perceptually.

What the work of art looks like isn't too important. Information technology has to expect like something if it has concrete grade. No matter what form it may finally have it must brainstorm with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given concrete reality past the artist the work is open up to the perception of all, including the artist. (I use the discussion "perception" to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the thought and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both.) The work of art can merely be perceived later on it is completed.

Art that is meant for the sensation of the heart primarily would exist called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include nearly optical, kinetic, calorie-free and color art.

Since the functions of conception and perception are contradictory (1 pre-, the other mail-fact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, and so capricious or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, gustatory modality and other whimsies would exist eliminated from the making of the art. The piece of work does not necessarily accept to be rejected if it does not expect well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward volition eventually exist visually pleasing.

To work with a plan that is pre-gear up is ane way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in plough. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, simply both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case withal, the creative person would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. Afterwards that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the piece of work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the arbitrary, and the subjective as much as possible. That is the reason for using this method.

When an artist uses a multiple modular method he unremarkably chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact it is all-time that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting and then that it may more than easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using circuitous basic forms simply disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This organisation becomes the stop while the course becomes the means.

Conceptual art doesn't really accept much to practise with mathematics, philosophy or whatsoever other mental discipline. The mathematics used past most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and is not an illustration of any organisation of philosophy.

It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once out of his hand the artist has no control over the manner a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same affair in a different manner.

Recently in that location has been much written about minimal art, but I accept not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around chosen primary structures, reductive, rejective, absurd, and mini-art. No artist I know will own upwards to any of these either. Therefore I conclude that information technology is role of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of fine art magazines. Mini-art is best because it reminds ane of mini-skirts and long-legged girls. It must refer to very minor works of art. This is a very good thought. Perhaps "mini-art" shows could be sent around the land in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person, say under v anxiety tall. If then, much proficient work will be found in the primary schools (principal schoolhouse master structures). If the creative person carries through his thought and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, even if not made visual is equally much a piece of work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps—scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed work, models, studies, thoughts, conversations—are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.

Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires 3 dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would exist what size is all-time. If the thing were made gigantic then the size lonely would exist impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Once again, if it is too small, information technology may become inconsequential. The superlative of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the infinite into which it volition be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the middle level of the viewer, or lower. I recollect the piece must exist large plenty to give the viewer whatever information he needs to empathize the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this agreement. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access.)

Space can be thought of equally the cubic surface area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval betwixt things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can exist important to a work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart), to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular infinite might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular trounce or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance. Compages and 3-dimensional art are of completely reverse natures. The erstwhile is concerned with making an expanse with a specific function.

Architecture, whether information technology is a piece of work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not commonsensical. When three dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics of compages such every bit forming commonsensical areas it weakens its office as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the large size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the slice.

New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. Mostly near artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones that lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to apply the materials well. It takes a proficient artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I call back, in making the physicality of the materials and so of import that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).

Iii-dimensional art of whatever kind is a physical fact. This physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to appoint the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape merely emphasize the physical aspects of the piece of work. Anything that calls attending to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would desire to amend this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use information technology in a paradoxical way. (To convert it into an idea.) This kind of fine art and then, should be stated with the most economy of means. Any idea that is meliorate stated in two dimensions should non be in 3 dimensions. Ideas may besides be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant.

These paragraphs are not intended every bit categorical imperatives but the ideas stated are as shut every bit possible to my thinking at this fourth dimension. * These ideas are the event of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas at that place seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I take tried to correct, merely others will probably slip by.) I do not abet a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that information technology has worked well for me while other ways have non. It is ane fashion of making art: other ways suit other artists. Nor do I call up all conceptual art claim the viewer'due south attention. Conceptual art is simply practiced when the idea is good.

* I dislike the term "piece of work of fine art" considering I am not in favor of work and the term sounds pretentious. Just I don't know what other term to apply.

—Sol LeWitt