SPACE
And Donald Judd's anti-mimetic fervour comes to its apogee in his treatment of space. Donald Judd prides himself on the fact that in his 'stack sculptures' the empty space between the boxes is an integral part of the sculpture as a whole. That is not new at all, at least not in architecture, where columns, obeliscs, towers and the like are not so much there as an end in themselves, but rather as a means of structuring and articulating the surrounding space.
Also sculptures - above all sculptures from the time when people knew how to dispose them in space - are primarily meant as beacons in architectural space. Think of the Karlsbrücke in Prague, where the sculptures are in first instance a kind of columns articulating the whole, just like the arches. And that holds equally true of Bernini's colonnade on Saint Peter's square in Rome. As soon as we concentrate on a single sculpture, however, the real space wherein it is erected disappears, and imaginary space unfolds, where the sculpture is no longer the equivalent of a column, but begins to conjure up imaginary beings. The comparison with the instruments of the orchestra imposes itself: as long as they are tuning, they are part of a real soundscape, but as soon as they begin to play, musical space unfolds in the dimension of the imaginary.****
New, hence, is not Donald Judd's structuring of space - therein fare more apt architects have preceded him already for centuries, if not millennia. New is that, under the guise of a revolution in sculpture, he reduces sculpture to a mere pedestal and proceeds to sell us such real thing for a sculpture - although the same Donald Judd conversely asserts that he has made a 'revolutionary stride' by liberating sculpture from the pedestal. 'It is impossible for people to understand that placement on the floor and the absence of a pedestal were inventions. I invented them' (cat. p. 148).
Unlike sculptors, hence, Donald Judd does not transform his material into an imaginary being. He merely transforms the real world, just like architects. Or to be more precise: like an interior designer. For, because Donald Judd continues to understand himself as an artist, he does not so much transform the open space as rather the interior of a museum. We do not deny that Donald Judd's 'free (fine) interior design' has its merits. It suffices to refer to highlights such as the one in Marfa below:
But Judd's work cannot but fade in comparison with the feats of architects, who rather than disguise their creations as sculpture, knew all too well their due place - and that of sculpture - or stained glass - as well:
That is why, even when we do not challenge Donald Judd's qualities as a free (fine) designer, we deny him a position in the history of sculpture - or in the history of art in general. Donald Judd has nothing in common with Rodin or Brancusi, but everything with figures like Mies van de Rohe. He does not belong in the history of art, but in the history of architecture or interior design - or the history of 'free' or 'fine' design in general, hand in hand with his true colleagues: designers like Panamarenko en Goldsworthy (see elsewhere on this website).
[ next ] theory