Minimalism:Origins

by Edward Strickland

" . . . a landmark work, the first attempt to write a pre-history of minimalism that embraces all the arts. Its importance cannot be overestimated." ―K. Robert Schwarz, Institute for Studies in American Music

"All told, this book is mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to understand the history and nature of minimalism." ―i/e NINE

"The death of Minimalism is announced regularly, which may be the surest testimonial to its staying power," says Strickland in this study, the first to examine in detail Minimalist tendencies in the plastic arts and music. Investigating the origins of Minimalism in postwar American culture, Strickland redefines it as a movement that developed radically reductive stylistic innovations in numerous media. A survey with wit.

Genres: Music, Art, History, Nonfiction

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[AskHistorians]

This book covers minimalism in art, music, and sculpture. It's cited by many as an extremely important secondary source on minimalism. The section on music traces the development of minimalism chronologically, from LaMonte Young through Philip Glass, and discusses the influences of jazz, earlier classical music, and Indonesian music on minimalist composers.

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

A poser and his navel gazing. Long paragraphs about how difficult his work has been. Than some more long paragraphs about what others have said on the chapter's theme. Than some more paragraphs. By the end of the chapter I found out I still don't know the answer. And than the same experience at the next chapter. And so on. A waste of paper for Strickland to exhibit his vast and useless knowledge.

[Matt Hannafin]

I have a soft spot for academic tomes about nearly academic art.

[Solrac Sedecrem · Rating 5 out of 5]

OiseauxInvisibles initially rated this "well written" volume four stars, though wished that a book on Origins in the '50s and '60s focused instead on the '70s and '80s. (Tough luck, Birdy). When Yr Svt points out this chronological incongruence and orthographical errors, OI huffily deletes h[is/er] review and POOF! reposts "for Friends Only"--in order to erase any past OR future critique of h[is/er] presumed infallibility. [Sh/H]e then takes out his pique on the author, deducting a star from the erstwhile "well written" book now suddenly "unreadable," indeed not "a book" at all! [Sh/H]e equally absurdly (albeit--get this--"sadly") berates Yr Svt, a complete stranger, as "a troller on a quest for mediocrity." Thus Spake the ROI-Soleil of Canarsie/QUEEN Victoria of Coney Island with h[is/er] knickers in a dreadful knot. A hoot.

Moving from the pretentious to the pathetic, reviewer letrio mentions "long paragraphs" in which Strickland writes of "how difficult his work has been." Such paragraphs simply do not exist. I suggested letrio provide an example, but none has been forthcoming (and never will be) from that fertile imagination. Nor do the chapters fit letrio's description, since this is primarily cultural history, not debate. Nor do I see how letrio can characterize the author as a "poser" while attributing to him "vast . . . knowledge."

The book is admittedly difficult at times in its broad range of reference, but letrio (whose avg. rating is 1.91 ) must have been impressed to award 2 stars to this "junk." letrio's fifth sentence makes no sense at all: "answer" to what? Letrio also misspells "then" as "than" no less than three times--not a typo . . . thus not a reviewer I would trust with my reading life but another semi-literate debunking (repeat: 1.91 avg. rating) those who can actually write. All told, I'd go with the Institute for Studies in American Music review over that of the reviewer who kant spel.

[Oiseaux Invisibles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had written a review of this book but a troller who has sadly devoted his 0r her life to the pursuit of mediocrity had issue with it, so I will rewrite:
I originally purchased this book being an enthusiast of La Monte Young's music but was quickly disappointed in the transition from Young to Glass/Reich/Riley. For this listener there is little to no relationship between the latter three's work and the strong tradition of Minimalism. I had trouble seeing the relationship beyond the dates. If we are to understand art in relation to Duchamp's spectator, it seems that the premier and recording of Young's most important work The Well Tuned Piano which was in the 70s and 80s makes the time frame here not really make sense for the modern enthusiast. This book would be far more readable and engaging if it dropped the idea of Origins and just focused on music and art of the same caliber as Mr. Youngs. For example, the brief section on film where Michael Snow, Richard Serra, Robert Morris, and Tony Conrad are discussed makes complete sense in relationship to Minimalism, if these works were focused on and more than just a passing note we would have a real book here. I found Alvin Lucier's book Music 109: Notes on Experimental Music to be a hundred times more readable and informative, perhaps because it was written from the trenches.
The focus of this book might be something of interest to others but this reader just found it disappointing.