1. For years I took Donald Judd at his word: that Minimalism is absolutely opposed to pictorial illusionism and virtual space (why, I thought foolishly, not take a literalist literally?). But is this account true to the art of Judd, let alone that of his friend Dan Flavin, early or late?1 What is the fate of the celebrated opposition between “specific object” and illusionist space in the aftermath of Minimalism—and the role of Flavin in that story? Opposed to illusionism, might Minimalism also be propped up by it, bound up with it, invested in it? In my own literalism (which was deepened by the literalism of process and site-specific art), I didn’t attend enough to how this illusionism, however transformed, might be preserved in Minimalism, even expanded by it—and, further, released everywhere, in the dispersive opticality of the Light and Space art that floated on Minimalism (especially

to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW for only $50 a year—65% off the newsstand price—and get the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the February 2005 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.