carrie's readsponses

Sol LeWitt:
I feel he could use fewer words by saying: "Conceptual art activates the left Brain as expressionism activates the Right brain."
It seems that he is saying just that only with soo many more words. He says it's not logical, but maybe it leans more towards the objective sense?
I will agree the most successful are usually the most obvious! I disagree that conceptual art has little to do with the mentioned disciplines. He may mean that artists rarely consciously use these. I have used only mathematics that are simple or blatantly obvious, I feel this stands out more. Less is more.
I can see how artists will never admit to minimalism. There is always a complexity behind an artistic presentation. mini skirts? matchboxes? mini artists? Was he trying to be funny? If so, he failed.
His mention that 3D art and Architecture are completely opposite natures, I can see that their stems are seprate of each other, but their vines intertwine, without individual distinction. I think we may very well link 3D art and architecture in EVERY way! For one high school art class all we studied was art and architecture. Through all the places of worship, buildings of business and so on, the line us students saw between the two faded fast, because we would only critique them as 3D art!
His paragraph on the physical fact of 3D art made me anxious for holograms to become easy to construct. Wouldn't that be quite the movement in art history? The age of holograms!
I feel this guy was very critical and closed minded. I could barely agree with him, but then again that was over 40 years ago. I don't see that as an excuse, I rarely come across a fellow student of art and find them closed-minded, it's kind of in the job description to be open-minded!
Kaprow:
I don't think the art form or "rules" changed. I will say it's the thought processes that have changed and evolved and so follows the pushing of the limits, expanding the boundaries! I dispise talk of the 'evolution of art' or that 'times have changed'. These make me think that the people who are actually driving the evolutions and changes are just taking the backseat. It's the people who create the explanding experiments and it's the different people with their different thoughts, different reactions and responses that make it seem like it's morphing. It's just we are looking at the art as a predicate through that persons perspective. It's like taking a picture of a rock with a blue lens, then taking a picture of that same rock with an orange lens. The rock is the same, but how we are shown this rock has changed. Using the phrase 'Evolutionary Art' makes an inanimae object animated to me, undeserved.
Mr. Higgins: Child's history
That is bogus that Maciunas became mad at those who didn't 'stay true' to the original group of 'Fluxus'. If maciunas was such a dedicator to Fluxus and saw Fluxus as it was(is?) and didn't become greedy, he would have totally embraced all changes because clearly that was the definition of the name of the movement. duh.
This guy seems pretty funny, protesting a group he performed with later that same day? That is original, ha!
I really liked the simplicity that was portrayed in this reading!
Mr. Higgins: HAPPENING!
For the process of naming happening, my response is simply: that is the largest artistic creation the naming. can't define it, leave it to the spectator to interpret. The naming seems the first step in spectation of this artistic venture. I makes it part of that whole, instead of just the slightly dislocated label. Genius!