The Difference Between Modernism And Minimalism

In some instances we can review a selected group of artists all of which interpret humanity and set views and philosophy’s of existentialism. In other ways these particular set of artists sought out to project ideas of the human within artistic practice, whether it be through emotive language or aesthetically through form.

A particular artist whose intention was to seek out the human form in an affirmative way was Henry Moore. Moore was an avant-gardist and very much like a humanist and a surrealist and would positively express how we understand ourselves through his work and what motivates us, for example Grey Tube Shelter (1940), in which he’d take on the role of observer within the underground station and then create from within his studio.

Minimalism could have been said to be a reaction to abstract expressionism and roots back from properties within modernism1. Modernism however was an epoch that arose within the late 19th century and early 20th century and could be described as the exploration and exploration or discovery and uniqueness and individuality. The purposes of modernism were seen to be based upon ideas of rejecting conservative ideologies and the portrayal of the real world.2 Similarly minimalist art characteristically shows no relation to reality. However it was often the case that the main purpose within minimalism was for only the viewer to respond to what is in front of them and to pay attention to the artworks medium.

Famously conceded as minimalist was Frank Stella’s ‘The Marriage of Reason and Squalor,’ 1960. Stella here used a décor brush to paint back lines vertically using enamel paint, each line being the same thickness of the paintbrush, whereas the small thinner lines were not painted but are simply the gap between the two black lines. As famously said by Stella, ‘My painting is based on the fact that only what can be seen is there… What you see is what you see’. This quote clearly reinstates the idea of him presenting ideas of literally just the

The terms Arte Povera can be translated to ‘Poor Art’ and was devised by the Italian art critic Germano Celant. Poor here means to its characteristic explorative variety of materials.1 The main purpose of the arte povera movement was to challenge or reject ideas around historical Italian art similar to ideas around Futurism again rejecting ideas of artistic tradition. Fundamentally, arte povera was interpreted to be based on the potential of movement, energy and material. It was also the demonstration of what was inanimate becoming animate. Some traditional examples of these ideas were in the work of Giovanni Anselmo’s Breathing, 1969.2 The piece presented two iron bars of 5m lengths that were sandwiched a sea sponge. As the metal contracts and expands, the sponge would almost breathe like a lung. Though unable to see the movement, Anselmo was presenting potential for movement, like fingernails growing. In one sense Arte Povera was a movement away from what can be seen as a dry and cerebral approach to artistic practice and theorisation accordingly to Artist Craig