Agnes Martin and Her Grids

While describing Martin’s transition from material ready-made objects to the grid, Briony Fer conjectures, “maybe the template of the grid, once she found it, was ready-made enough.” How can something that is no more material than a drawing be considered a ready-made object?

One of the connections between traditional material ready-mades and the gird is the notion of utility. When artists integrate ready-made objects into their work they are essentially taking an object made for some purpose, placing it into the context of art and are thereby stripping it of its original utility. Grids are definitely utilitarian in that they were invented as tools to help organize, plan, draw, etc. Grids are used to make sure that all of the small details fit into an organized whole, such as houses into a gridded neighborhood, or points on a graph. So what does it mean to put a grid with nothing in it onto a canvas and call it art? Is its utility transformed to fit into the context of art, or it is just lost altogether? I would say that it still has utility in that it can be used for purposes such as juxtaposing infinity with the infinitesimal, or highlighting difference through repetition.

Throughout the article, Fer references Martin’s own writings about her work and makes comparisons between her writing and her work. Does writing about ones art detract from its ability to stand alone as a work of art, or does it enhance its meaning since the concept behind the work is what makes conceptual art?