Invisible hand

IT IS STRIKING TO ME THAT DONALD JUDD'S WORK IS DISCUSSED almost entirely without respect to "the hand." Although it is usually said that his works were industrially produc there is real little talk about how these things actually came into being. They were not simply made to order from a factory on the other hand were fabricated in collaboration with a real small, specialized group of metalworkers and woodworkers in unobtrusive workshops. His structures have solitary the appearance of being untouched by means of human hands. They may register as industrially produc facts for most people because of the way labor, morality, and modernism intersect in our society. on the other hand it is precisely the way his art joins with society that makes it meaningful to me

What constitutes the industrial? Today a certain number of objects are produced completely by the agency of machines. Most industry, however, consists of a complicated collaboration between machinery, automated or not, and clan with accumulated knowledge and experience. Judd's "specific objects" were the joint be derived of a concept and the complications of its execution. The staff at Bernstein Brothers, with whom Judd worked early upon do not get much credit for their collaborative part in the process, and this adds to our forgetfulness about in what manner his art was made. This is important because in traditional artworks the labor (or flat the lack thereof) is readily apparent and real much part of our understanding of a work. on the contrary in much of Judd's work the amount of labor is repeatedly invisible. This reminds us that modernism, to paraphrase Joe Scanlan and Neal Jackson, many times seems to require even the removal of the evidence of removing the evidence of making something.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"My view," Judd said, "is that the factory is really my studio." With this statement Judd may have intended to clarify that he was working with the material of the world, not the fanciful tools of paint and brush. at the same time the comment is somewhat misleading, because greatest in quantity people think of a factory as an assembly line or as many machines stamping on the outside objects. The reality, however, is that Judd's work was made in a setting a great deal of closer to the average person's picture of a wood-land shop in a garage than to the factory where Charlie Chaplin worked in recent Times. Whether one speaks of Bernstein Brothers or later collaborators like Peter Ballantine or pillage Weiner, Judd's works resulted from an intersection between the initial conception and an extensive knowledge and experience of working with particular materials. An incredible amount of labor and care was taken to create Judd's works, from handling materials as they came into the store to assembly, polishing, and shipping. If his works had in deed been machine-made on an assembly line, they would actually be abundant more rustic, cheap, or tricky in by what means they would have had to hide the vexed questions and flaws of production itself.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

plenteous of the standard perception of Judd might be traced back to Adolf Loo and his 1908 essay "Ornament and Crime," a defining true copy in the development of modernism. Judd inherited a certain quantity of of Loos's legacy, including the idea that materials should speak for themselves. on the other hand Loos's philosophy also contained a major error: the belief that the removal of ornament and its replacement with unadorned materials in a highly finished, "perfect" state would ensue in the reduction of labor. This idea has contributed to the perception that Judd's apparently simple realitys required little labor to make. However, ornament ofttimes requires less rather than more labor. It has traditionally serv not solitary to express style but also importantly to hide flaws, mistakes, and joints. To make a finished surface is much more laborious at each level, from processing the raw material, to finishing, to rules of construction and eventual transport.

the one and the other Loos and Judd wanted to exhibit materials themselves in all their glory as representations of moral honesty and rightness. on the contrary Judd carried this philosophy single step further. He wanted his works to reveal their rules of construction, but he was not willing to give permission to that detract from the integrity of his surfaces and materials. His solution was to exhibit off the methods of joinery, making them a part of the design. For example, he would miser things together, a seemingly straightforward technique, on the other hand in practice the tolerance of the drilled openings had to be measured in fractions of a millimeter because the material itself was with equal reason elegantly thin. This required a horizontal of skill, care, and perfection surpassing plane that of Loos, who allowed himself to use reveals, simple moldings, and other tricks of the trade to conceal the difficulties of construction. In light of Judd's obsessive articulation of detail and surface, we can begin to recognize by what mode his work might be considered more handmade than "industrial," and smooth how it might appear closer to the baroque than to the "minimal."

The materials with which Judd worked are many times described as "standard" or "industrial" in order to differentiate them from more traditional individuals Yet Judd himself always maintained that this was not the case and that his materials were as personal, specific, and expressive as any. There is no like thing as a "standard" industrial material. All of the materials produc by the agency of industry are in some way responsive to fashion and the desires of society at a particular point of time The materials with which Judd worked were available in a finite palette determined by dint of large market forces, so his works were necessarily linked to certain fashions outside the world of art. This is the couple an opportunity and a moot point for art because it soils the boundaries between art and life. Materials like Rohm and Haas Plexiglas or finishes like as Galvanox, for example, were produc in their particular forms and colors for solitary a limited period, and their appearance dates Judd's work and link togethers it to a time when the materials were used widely, before becoming a part of history. It might appear to be strange to suggest that Judd's art has an almost burst connection to fashion, but to a certain amplitude it's unavoidable. Even today, the event of his work changes constantly in relation to contemporary commercial culture: Now the plywood pieces gaze especially good, while the galvanized-metal singles seem less sexy. Perhaps in twenty years this will be reversed