What do you think?
Rate this book
Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties
The simple question “What is minimalism?” has defied simple answers. Artists known as minimalists have distinctively different methods and points of view. This highly readable history of minimalist art shows how artists as diverse as Carl Andre, Donald Judd, Robert Morris, and Anne Truitt came to be designated as minimalists during a series of exhibitions in the 1960s.
“I can think of no book that even undertakes a comparable art historical account—not merely tracing a movement year by year, but showing how the movement’s consciousness of itself emerged.”—Arthur Danto, Times Literary Supplement
“Many skeptics deem the sixties too close for comfort and hence not suitable for an art history in the grand tradition. James Meyer proves them wrong. Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties establishes a historical precision and seriousness that many have thought lacking in the recent wave of writing about postwar American art.”—Christine Mehring, Art Journal
“By far the best account to date of Minimalism’s development and the essential point of departure for all future research on the subject.”—Pepe Karmel, Art in America
“I can think of no book that even undertakes a comparable art historical account—not merely tracing a movement year by year, but showing how the movement’s consciousness of itself emerged.”—Arthur Danto, Times Literary Supplement
“Many skeptics deem the sixties too close for comfort and hence not suitable for an art history in the grand tradition. James Meyer proves them wrong. Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties establishes a historical precision and seriousness that many have thought lacking in the recent wave of writing about postwar American art.”—Christine Mehring, Art Journal
“By far the best account to date of Minimalism’s development and the essential point of departure for all future research on the subject.”—Pepe Karmel, Art in America
- GenresArtArt History
340 pages, Paperback
First published August 11, 2004
2 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 7, 2009
Insofar as the history of responses goes, with blue cats.
November 6, 2017
Loved it. It demonstrates how artists and art writers evolve stylistic categories, then slot art into those categories. Verbal disputes create adversarial positions until everything hardens into 'teams:' "It’s This, not That!” So two boxes made by two different artists could belong to two different 'teams' based on the theory behind them.
A great source of confusion is that critics had different definitions for similar terms; so, Michael Fried’s idea of modernism wasn’t exactly the same as Clement Greenberg’s idea of modernism. Artist Donald Judd didn’t think of literalism the same way artist Robert Morris did. Meanwhile, the same player (artist) might have been claimed by two different teams. "He's doing This! no, he's doing That!' In time, the arguments became so subtly convoluted that some critics were defending their own anathemas. Michael Fried, for instance, suggested that the literalists (Judd, Andre, Flavin) whom Greenberg disliked, were actually the true heirs of Greenberg’s own theory of formalism.
It reminded me of the historical development of early Christianity. Everybody started from the same place, but the minor differences were argued and debated until they hardened into dogmatic positions. One of the final chapters deals with an essay by Fried that reads more like a treatise on religion than an art commentary. This pattern of evolution, I realized, has applied to many art movements of the past--abstract expressionism, for instance (Ad Reinhardt didn't want his rectilinear art to be shown alongside all those 'squiggly lines' being done by his colleagues.)
Incidentally, the name itself—minimalism—was not coined by the artists. It started out as a pejorative, as in “insufficient” or “this is the bare acceptable minimum of what constitutes art.' And because of their theoretical differences, they did not see themselves as belonging to one particular genre.
One final thought: Donald Judd was attacked all along for using fabrication shops to make his pieces, hence it was not ‘art’ because the artist didn’t make the thing. This doesn’t really make sense to me. Couturiers don’t sew their own designs, nor do architects hammer up their own buildings…so what's the difference? sculptors have their work cast at foundries...and we all know the renaissance artists had ateliers of underlings who did a lot of the painting.
Lots of b & w photos and several nice colour plates. Book is not hard to read, I did it in two day-long sittings. Just try to keep track of who’s playing for which team.
A great source of confusion is that critics had different definitions for similar terms; so, Michael Fried’s idea of modernism wasn’t exactly the same as Clement Greenberg’s idea of modernism. Artist Donald Judd didn’t think of literalism the same way artist Robert Morris did. Meanwhile, the same player (artist) might have been claimed by two different teams. "He's doing This! no, he's doing That!' In time, the arguments became so subtly convoluted that some critics were defending their own anathemas. Michael Fried, for instance, suggested that the literalists (Judd, Andre, Flavin) whom Greenberg disliked, were actually the true heirs of Greenberg’s own theory of formalism.
It reminded me of the historical development of early Christianity. Everybody started from the same place, but the minor differences were argued and debated until they hardened into dogmatic positions. One of the final chapters deals with an essay by Fried that reads more like a treatise on religion than an art commentary. This pattern of evolution, I realized, has applied to many art movements of the past--abstract expressionism, for instance (Ad Reinhardt didn't want his rectilinear art to be shown alongside all those 'squiggly lines' being done by his colleagues.)
Incidentally, the name itself—minimalism—was not coined by the artists. It started out as a pejorative, as in “insufficient” or “this is the bare acceptable minimum of what constitutes art.' And because of their theoretical differences, they did not see themselves as belonging to one particular genre.
One final thought: Donald Judd was attacked all along for using fabrication shops to make his pieces, hence it was not ‘art’ because the artist didn’t make the thing. This doesn’t really make sense to me. Couturiers don’t sew their own designs, nor do architects hammer up their own buildings…so what's the difference? sculptors have their work cast at foundries...and we all know the renaissance artists had ateliers of underlings who did a lot of the painting.
Lots of b & w photos and several nice colour plates. Book is not hard to read, I did it in two day-long sittings. Just try to keep track of who’s playing for which team.
May 13, 2018
This is a great book for anyone who has a decent background in art history, but has always wondered a bit about minimalism. I picked this book up at the Chinati Foundation in Marfa because while I liked Judd's work, I admit that I didn't feel like I "got" it. I got more than I bargained for--in the best possible way. James Meyer breaks down the nuances down in a way that are helpful in understanding the whole Greenberg/Fried impact on what we consider good art from that period. It is helpful to be a little familiar with their work, but Meyers does a great job of putting their essays in context. It definitely helps you understand why Judd left NYC.
October 28, 2020
I read this book for an art history course a few weeks ago. In general, it was easy to understand and comprehensive. Would recommend if you do not know much about Minimalism (even if you think that Minimalism is boring!).
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews