View current page
...more recent posts
from james meyer minimalism art and polemics in the sixties ("Specific Objects" pages 140-141):
As Francis Colpitt has observed, for Judd, to take an interest in a thing is "to value that thing." "Does the work hold your interest?" Judd would ask. "Do you want to live with it and think about it?" Declaring that a work "needs only to be interesting," Judd means that it only be worth looking at. It may not be a good work, but it held ones gaze. A work that caused one to look again was even more interesting; a great work had a lasting interest. Judd seems to have adopted Perry's notion for another reason. A term of judgement, "interest" sounded more neutral, more objective perhaps, than effusive panegyrics favored by the writers at Artnews durring the late fifties.
In short Judd did not intend to supplant Greenbergian "quality" with a non-evaluative interest. He meant to suggest that a work that was interesting was worth looking at not "merely" interesting.