Writing

Xiyue Wang

Art Movement Response

Oct 28 2014

Is a “Specific Object” Design?

 

Art is always entwined with design in the history. Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional design have always followed the fashion of art. But since Marcel Duchamp brought a urinal to the Society of Independent Artists exhibit in 1917 and named it “Fountain”, art began to lose its privilege of  isolation from the “ordinary” life. The term "readymade" makes the line in between art and product design ambiguous. At the same time, it opened the door of diversity to the art world. Approximately 50 years later, there were some artists pushing the boundary of art further. Donald Judd named this “neither painting or sculpture” object “specific object”. Is the specific object an artist’s interpretation of design? Where does it converge and diverge from design?

 

To me, Donald Judd has certainly erased the boundary of art and design. First, we can take a look at this artwork “Untitled”(1968) in MoMA.(Image1) It is made with brass with a minimal and industrial look. Think about different circumstances: if it is in a department store, it might be marked as a “minimal” end table, a stand or a tea table, which would be expensive but it would still be possible to put two in your living room and several books on top. If it is a public infrastructure in a city, it might serve as a chair and used by all kinds of people. By putting it in art museum, people can only perceive it with their eyes. The lack of sensation leaves a great space for viewer to wonder and endow it with meaning. Similarly, there is another “Untitled”(1967). (Image2) This one is more “designed” in the form, and it almost automatically makes people to associate with products. As Judd said, “because the nature of three dimensional isn’t set, given before hand, something credible can be made, almost anything”. To me, this is the mysterious part of minimalism. In a large sense, everything is design. Minimalism, can be considered product design that separated from the functional part. So its literal part can be profound. And unlike “painting or sculpture” that attach emotions or meanings that “behind surface” either by the work itself or by the action of artists, “specific object” leaves the viewer this final step to finish the work. For this point, minimalism totally diverges from the “implanting” character of art, and converges with “interactive” character of product design.

 

But, “specific object” is not design for a more obvious reason. First, it does not have the important “functional” part of design. Interestingly, both Donald Judd’s stack(Image3), and Agnes Martin’s untitled(Image4) shares an emptiness. But the work is not empty; it is just a simplified and disciplined form, or a “neutral” organization. Even in the design that shares the same form, people will focusing on finding the function, which reduced its intrinsic quality. The emptiness makes minimalist “credible”. It became a voice against this overwhelming materialistic world. Second, it is autonomous. Whether client or user, there is always a “human figure” on the top of design. Minimalism can pull it away and become totally “neutral”. Third, even though “specific object” can be “fabrication out of the artist’s hand”, it will never be mass-produce to serve the profit purposes. This is probably most important character of art. It avoids design’s obedience to and conspiracy with profit, which makes it magnificent and invaluable.

 

This charisma of “specific object” might explain why it is influential both in art and design. That makes me think of my own work. I always found hard to define whether it is a design or art. But I think it may belong more to “specific object”, less defined, less controlled, and more unpredictable. It is interactive, which makes it live in between art and design, and might leans toward design. But think about its autonomy and disobedience, for sure it has a voice of art.