In order to understand minimal artists tendency to produce objects and not images, we need to define minimalism. Michael Delahunt at Artlex (1) refers to minimalism as A twentiethcentury style of art stressing the idea of reducing a work of art to the minimum number of colors, values, shapes, lines and textures. But I think this definition does not completely reflect what minimal artists did. They did not get interested in complex things as colors, values, lines etc. They preferred objects to images or I would rather say brushstrokes. Because that they believed that less is more, even brushstrokes were too much for them.Minimalists were against self expression. They wanted to use the meaning a ready made object already has in it. This was totally suitable for their purpose of using minimum effort and material for an artwork. Preparing an image would consume too much of the artists time and effort. And whats more, it would have self expression in it.They also believed that art could be concieved by mind before execution. That is, onemust be able to explain an artwork to another who hasnt seen it. For example Mohology-Nagygave instructions by phone to a factory for one of his works(2). This can be thought as a instruction manual for an artwork (I think we can call minimalism as D.I.Y. art!). But you cant do this kind of art with a painting. Can you think of it? put some yellow there, mix red with brown and put it on the tree with gentle strokes....With ready made objects, just like an architect, giving directions from where you sit, with minimal effort, you can create an artwork. And what is more you dont have to do it yourself. Dan Flavins Monument for V. Tatlin was made by the work of electricians(2). It can be discussed whether it can be still considered as the work of Flavin or not but the artists see this as their work because they thought of it.When I first came up with Duchamps urinal, I was surprised to see that it is considered...
