SCOTT REDFORD AND MICHAEL ZAVROS
Dina Ibrahim: An article by Sebastian Smee in The Australian (24 March 2007) states that Michael Zavros’s literal tendency in art comes out of Minimalism, and Scott you also mentioned your fascination with it. In your opinion, what relationship does your work have with Minimalism?
Scott Redford: Smee’s comments about literalism and Minimalism come from Michael Fried’s famous essay ‘Art & Objecthood’. Many conservative leading critics like this essay as Fried has a quasi spiritual bent and conservatives see art as a quasi religion, so it all fits. Interestingly Robert Smithson, who himself showed a very strong religious bent in his early works, was the very first to attack Fried, perhaps seeing something of himself there.
Having said that, there is no doubt that Minimalism has been a challenge and an inspiration to many and not just to artists who make obviously minimal-like works. All those interested in post-war Western advanced art engaged with the minimalist tendency in some way, even if to reject it. I have long been engaged with the maximal/minimal dialectic in my various projects. Often this is very literal, such as a series of works on paper from 1986 titled A Description of Black which dealt primarily with Peter Booth’s minimalist black paintings and his later turn to apocalyptic figuration (another form of ‘black’). In those works I produced automatic images in black gloss enamel on paper that ranged from monochrome to figurative and these were exhibited in long rows.
My ’80s and ’90s black combines (which I have returned to as props for Reinhardt Dammn the feature film project) were literal minimal/maximal. Although there was a chaotic profusion of readymade objects in the... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline
Michael Zavros, Echo, 2009. Courtesy Grantpirrie, Sydney, and Philip Bacon Galleries, Brisbane.
Michael Zavros, V12 Narcissus, 2009. Oil on board, 20 x 29.5cm. Courtesy Grantpirrie, Sydney, and Philip Bacon Galleries, Brisbane.
