Sol LeWitt
Recently we discussed the role Sol LeWitt played in Conceptual art. I think Sol LeWitt finally hit it home. Creativity really doesn’t have anything to do with physical construction; rather creativity deals with the initial creation of an idea. The very instance that something new is thought of is the moment of creativity. All semester we have discussed great artists, everything from Michelangelo to Pollock, and although their art is very different, they all have one thing in common, creativity. Pablo Picasso may stand as one of the greatest examples of true creativity. It has been shown many times with numerous examples that Picasso could mimic pretty much any style, but to be a true artist he had to create something new. He did this through cubism. If Picasso had just copied other art styles he would have been a nobody.
The argument is often made that modern or postmodern art isn’t art because the average Joe could do it. People often say anyone could drip paint on canvas like Pollock and call it art. What isn’t fully understood by the people who say things like this is that sure the average Joe could recreate the art, but the average Joe would not have come up with the initial idea. Pollock’s works are great because he came up with something new.
Along these lines Sol LeWitt isolates the creativity of art. Sol LeWitt would often design a piece of art, but instead of constructing it himself for an exhibition he would simply send off the instructions on how to construct the piece. I think Sol LeWitt takes a risk when he sends off his instructions. There is no guarantee that the person on the receiving end will construct the piece exactly as Sol LeWitt envisioned it. Nonetheless, I think that Sol LeWitt made a profound statement; art is art because of its initial creativity.
2 comments:
“Creativity really doesn’t have anything to do with physical construction; rather creativity deals with the initial creation of an idea. The very instance that something new is thought of is the moment of creativity.”
I disagree with the idea that once the initial creation of idea for art is thouht of, there is no more creativity. Creativity answers not just generally what, but also how. A novice painter may use creativity to explore on his own how to paint different ways to create the image in his mind using different techniques, color mixing, etc. Creativity is key not just to the initial idea, but often to any new way of doing things that may be integral to physical creation.
Creativity is also a very modern notion. It "confers importance" (to use Susan Sontag's words from "America Seen Through Photographs Darkly") on the artist. The word and the ideas behind it raise the artist to the level of a god. The artist creates as if they are this monolithic super human, a genius. Using the word "creativity" also has traces of the idea of "talent," especially in the way that you use it in your discussion of Le Witt. You suggest that Le Witt was born with this innate ability to do this thing, that it wasn't a learned skill in any way, that it's something that just happens outside of the consciousness of the artist.
Postmodernist (as Le Witt identifies himself) would deny these principles. In stressing that the concept behind his art work is the most valuable aspect of his work, he begins a critique of the notions of creativity and talent. He seems to be challenging the very ideas that you found appealing in his work - that's interesting!
Le Witt's action to out source the production of his objects was not a new idea when he did it either. Michelangelo utilized apprentices to help him grind paint, draw cartoons, transfer the cartoons from paper to ceiling, and even to paint. In a pre-industrial age, this can be seen as a kind of outsourcing. Raphael used assistants so much that people often criticized him for his outsourcing, (Michelangelo was one of them). Sculptors of marble also employed assistants to do most of the carving on a piece, and often only made the final surface touches.
Post a Comment