6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
I found the above statement interesting. I can somewhat appreciate it from a conceptual perspective; but isn't the artist more susceptible to repeating past results if the result is so fully preconceived? I believe separating art completely from the process is limiting. For me, the process is part of the development of the idea. As with abstract expressionism, making art is an essential step in the evolution of the artist and of the idea. This negotiation is key in fleshing out that which is not, or can not yet be figured. To conceptualize an idea from start to finish limits us to our mind's capacity; whereas, when we allow an idea to evolve beyond what we've mapped out, we go beyond our self. Lewitt actually illustrates this in another sentence:
22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it is complete.
It seems Lewitt understands that evolution of ideas is a natural byproduct of art no matter the approach. He would probably argue for developing all of the subsequent ideas to their full potential, albeit preconceived. Perhaps Lewitt has more faith in human capacity than I ..or maybe just better ideas.
28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There are many side effects that the artist cannot imagine. These may be used as ideas for new works.
