Minimalist artists attempt to produce less representational pieces that in essence, stand on their own. It isn't referring to anything in the world we know and has to be appreciated solely for the sake of how it impacts the viewer. The art is less personal and more substantial, with its proponents believing that a work of art should not refer to anything other than itself. This movement started in the 50's as some artists moved away from Abstract Impressionism. Some artists had moved by the 60's out of paint as a medium altogether, working with industrial and other materials that blurred the lines between infrastructure and art.
A few years ago, I saw two works at the Hirshorn Museum in Washington D.C. by the Minimalist artist Dan Flavin (1933-1996), part of the original group of NY artists from the 50's that went in this direction.
The first was “untitled (to Helga and Carlo, with respect and affection)”. If I remember correctly, this piece and the next were attached to the wall in a darkened room.
The second was “‘monument’ for V. Tatlin”.
I am opened minded when it comes to art, but I have to admit that modern art is sometimes difficult for me. These two pieces left me intrigued but not totally bought in when I saw them in person. They were tubes of fluorescent lights affixed to each other to build the piece. Even now, I think they work as well in the iPhone photos that I took as they did in person. But art is definitely to be left to "the eye of the beholder".
If you want to see some modern art "sculptures" that completely blew me away, check out two of my previous posts linked below. But I'd love to hear how you feel about the two Flavin pieces.
https://steemit.com/trippythursday/@dabeckster/trippy-thursday-rainbow-filament
https://steemit.com/art/@dabeckster/building-a-tree-2-inches-at-a-time
