The value of minimalist art compared to that of traditional art is the subject of intense controversy within the art community. With its emergence in the mid-twentieth century following the art movement of abstract expressionism, minimalist art put a heavy emphasis on visual “simplicity,” excluding all non-essential elements and concepts. Minimalist art gives freedom of interpretation to the viewer in a way other art does not—it encourages deep analysis, while at the same time often presenting very little material to examine. But it is also arguably a low-effort art form when compared to other art.
An early influence on minimalism and the beginning of a century-long debate is Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, a sculpture Duchamp submitted to the Society of Independent Artists in 1917. The sculpture initiated discussions on the boundaries of art—could the “sculpture,” which was really just a urinal that Duchamp hadn’t even constructed himself, be considered art? Was it a clever method of shifting the observer’s focus and understanding of art away from its physical limitations, or was it an insult to the entire art community? Fountain’s influence on conceptualist, minimalist, and modern art is undeniable. It, among other things, sparked an anti-Renaissance, of sorts, in art. Minimalism makes an attempt to distance itself from biographical elements and the intense humanism explored during the Renaissance. It was an unexplored concept that offered no clear rules or expectations.
Increased minimalist art emerged throughout the century, each piece sparking extensive discussion. Ellsworth Kelly’s Yellow Piece and Brent Hallard’s Knot (Pink) are some famous examples. Some argue that while these pieces are still art, they have less value than other, more exhaustive works such as Leonardo Da Vinci’s revered Mona Lisa, which took him years to complete (the exact timeline of the Mona Lisa is debated, some estimating it took over ten years, with others sticking to a more tame estimate of two or three years). This is a view many outside of the art community seem to hold. When faced with a legendary painting like Starry Night and Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian (the duct-taped banana pictured to the left), people usually feel more inclined to appreciate the former. I feel like both arguments have some weight. Art is a subjective experience, and for many people, minimalist art has earned its place in museums as much as any Vincent Van Gogh or Artemisia Gentilseschi painting. However, it is important to consider the feelings of artists who work incredibly hard on their art, only to see museum walls filled with duct-taped bananas and urinals. Recently, Cattelan’s aforementioned banana was consumed in Seoul’s Leeum Museum of Art. This is the second time an incident like this has occurred. According to the BBC, when questioned about the occurrence, Cattelan said it was “no problem at all.” I think this highlights the way many minimalist artists view their artwork. It’s sort of an experiment. How will people react to this? What will they do? Art is a very human form of expression, and I encourage all aspects of it. Art is only as valuable as people allow it to be. Regardless of whether or not you think minimalism deserves the same amount of respect as traditional art, it is still a fascinating medium for artists to take advantage of.