Friday, March 12, 2010

With regards to ideology, is there any way to differentiate our attitude towards a mathematically-driven architecture versus that of automatic art? In particular, consider the wall paintings of Sol LeWitt or the Drawing Restraints of Mathew Barney (especially 1-6, 10). Does either example establish a stronger connection between the idea and the idea-made-manifest? The rule and the drawing, the code and the building. Of course, the pivotal and unavoidable question is why we would circumvent the will of the creator and his or her direct connection to the consumer. But in return, we should also question whether or not the rule constitutes a will, and whether or not it is intelligent enough to generate something valuable for the consumer.


Blogger // JD said...

Reading this post a few weeks later, I would add that, especially in the case of Lewit and Barney, the so-called "automatic" processes employed in the generation of art or architecture - or anything for that matter - might actually be seen as a re-contextualization of a creative will, a strategic systematization of the aesthetic process meant to strip bare, expose and reduce that which was previously shrouded by mystery, otherwise known (dare I say it) as talent.

April 25, 2010 at 7:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home