I feel that clarification is needed on what my intentions for my work are when I say that it should be ‘interesting enough to sustain itself’. Wanting something to be interesting is rather a broad statement, much like Donald Judd’s statement ‘a work needs only to be interesting…’
Firstly I believe that for a work to be interesting it needs only to sustain interest for the viewer. Providing enough to look at, that the viewer can visually interact with to engage ones intrigue and satisfy the viewers visual requirements form a piece of artwork. This does not mean that I am simply trying to provide the viewer with enough of a visual, as I believe it possible to create an impact with simplicity. Much like Judd’s notions of the whole, an object that is reduced to all it needs to be is uncomplicated and defined, ‘the main things are alone and more intense, clear and powerful.’
Secondly, I believe that it is possible to create a piece of work that is interesting without it having a purpose. As my work is about the process of me making, and the use of material, making something intriguing out of these materials, this is to be the focus of my artwork. I intend to make Minimalistic visual objects and arrangement of objects.
I don’t believe that my work, or any work necessarily needs to have a purpose, or a meaning behind it. A work can be interesting without deep political or social connotations and can be sufficient in itself, and with only its visual aspects to consider.
