Minimal Ideas Turn to Maximum Theatrics.

How sad it was to read that Tony Smith’s cube in "Die" was nothing more than a never-ending proposition of inexhaustible “hollow” endlessness. In other words a big human size “nothing”.
Fascinating theory indeed that I am sure could unsettle a few people in the class. What I find fascinating however, is that so much of the theory is based on this idea of the theatrical space, created by Literalist works. But what happens in this space remains extremely subjective. The beholder’s act of experiencing the work could lead to many different outcomes. Some could offset this notion of the beholder becoming the subject while facing the object.
What about the relationship with the presence? What about the relationship with the nature of the piece? Isn’t this at the core of his argument. If you call it the “presence” because of its “seriousness” then you must consider a sensory reciprocity that is extremely subjective. An ownership of the work from each and everyone of us is therefore a possibility. There can be a kind of participation that goes beyond the objectification of the beholder. We don’t have to be distanced since our relationship with the object is personal. If the theory is based on a personal perception, should Michael Fried generalize it to an unavoidable phenomenon denying the minimalists their light under the sun of aesthetics.

Tony Smith "Die" 1962.

Another question along the same lines presents itself. Is it possible to react to the elements of control of the work? Can one combat its “obtrusiveness” and “aggressiveness” and not become irrelevant faced with such potency. Why couldn’t one fight the anthropomorphized attack of these “shapes”? Tony Smith and Anne Truitt talk of presences but don’t mention anything about these presences being menacing or threatening.

Anne Truitt "Sculptures" c. 1963.

Lastly, when he writes of Tony Smith’s car ride and his “Literal epiphany”. Was his experience theater? Maybe his experience was theater but does it mean the work is theater too?
It is an experience that will trigger inspiration that in turn will trigger another experience. The experience of the artist that leads him to create HAS NOTHING TO DO with the experience of the viewer that is looking at the piece. These are two separate experiences One can arguably be “theater” but its artistic translation can be “owned” by a beholder who has only limited empathy for the work.