Number 23 1960

Editor: So, here we have John McLaughlin’s “Number 23” from 1960. It looks like acrylic paint on canvas. It’s… well, it’s very stark. The severe geometric forms make me wonder what's the impact he wanted to create on the viewer. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I see McLaughlin grappling with the evolving role of art in a postwar world. Abstract Expressionism, of which he was a part, emerged in the context of Cold War anxieties and a search for new forms of meaning. But there's something distinct in McLaughlin's approach compared to some of his contemporaries. Look at how rigorously he pares down the composition. Editor: Right, that's clear minimalism! The black rectangles, that yellow line… the huge white surrounding canvas makes all shapes so detached. It almost feels like a commentary on, or even a rejection of, the emotional intensity we typically associate with Abstract Expressionism. Is that plausible? Curator: Exactly. Minimalism was in part a reaction against the perceived excesses and subjective gestures of the Abstract Expressionists. And McLaughlin, aligning with this, critically questions art’s accessibility. Do these stark geometric shapes invite a wide audience, or intentionally narrow the viewership? This speaks volumes about the elitism, or perhaps the desired level of intellectual engagement, within the art world. Editor: That's really fascinating! I hadn't considered the implications on accessibility before. Now, I realize how profoundly an artwork like "Number 23" makes such a strong statement by seeming so reduced and almost elemental. Curator: Precisely. McLaughlin uses minimalism as a way to really question who and what art is for, and it's essential to remember it's historical context when we examine it.