Grids Part 5

In a recent conversation with painter Yunhee Min I was provoked to the following thought about grids:

What I find most interesting in what you are saying is your use of geometry to make an origin for yourself. [referring to Min’s paintings] It’s a beginning, but also, as you say, an origin. Every work has a beginning, but the notion of origin is something stronger and maybe more profound. Nowadays I think of myself (and other artists) as a maker of places, not spaces. I used to think a lot about space, and that is a good way to think because it stays with the work, but now I think more about places, and my Islands are of course imaginary places. Richard Shiff said something about my work that made me very happy, that “a sense of place arises from nothing and nowhere.” To me this is really a compliment. If only. My argument with geometry is that it is always the same place, and that means the same place already occupied by other artists. The grid is infinite, so you can find an empty place on the grid, but you are still on the same grid as everyone else, so it can’t be an origin.

The answer to where? is always—in relation to who or what? It was Carl Andre who first theorized the artwork as place, and I think it’s a very important and brilliant idea, but I believe it also applies to the work of Pollock, if not theorized.

This entry was posted in Abstraction and Society, American Modernism, Ethics of Abstraction, Principles of Abstraction, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *