Conceptual art: what's the point?

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Now I've lured you in with my intentionally provocative thread title...

I went to Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago and had a look around a very large, nicely appointed museum of modern art (the Stedelijk, if anyone knows it). Every few months I go somewhere like this in the vague belief or hope that it is somehow doing me some good, or perhaps I just like to think of myself as the kind of person who occasionally goes to galleries to see 'challenging' things. But as usual, the reaction I got from a few of the pieces was "that's kind of cool, I guess", while from others - probably the majority - it was more like "huh".

I can think of three possible explanations here:

1) The meaning of these artworks is blindingly obvious to most people but I'm just too stupid or artistically insensitive to intuitively understand it. I think I can dismiss this because no-one else in the gallery seemed to be having 'eureka!' moments as they looked at, for example, a square white canvas with a row of metal bolts stuck in it.

Also, if the concept supposedly represented by a piece of conceptual art were that obvious, they wouldn't need these little bits of text on the wall next to them to tell you what they're meant to mean. These are interesting in themselves, with their own particular cant that is remarkably consistent between different kinds of art and between different galleries and museums in different countries. "The viewer is invited into a dialogue with..."; "The viewer is forced to consider the relation between..."; well actually I don't feel like I've been invited into or forced to do anything. I'm looking at a square white canvas with a row of metal bolts stuck in it and I see...a square white canvas with a row of metal bolts stuck in it. If whatever concept the artist intended to imbue into the piece were in any way obvious, surely I would see it and wouldn't need to be told what the concept was?

An analogue in representational art would be a painting of a horse with a bit of text on the wall next to it saying "this is a painting of a horse". If you have to be told that, then it fails pretty miserably as a piece of representational art, doesn't it? (Like a proud parent to a small child who's just produced an expressive polychromatic scribble: "That's lovely, darling! What is it?") There might be some bit of incidental background information that the text could supply - that the horse belonged to Napoleon, say - which isn't obvious from the painting, but the simple fact of it being a horse should be obvious to anyone who's ever seen a horse before.

2) There really is no meaning inherent in any of these pieces, or at best the meaning is apparent only to the artist responsible for it and perhaps the handful of other artists who were involved in the same specific scene or movement. This seems a rather uncharitable explanation as it paints the whole of conceptual art as a case of emperor's-new-clothes, almost a colossal extended exercise in practical trolling.

3) An intermediate position in which the meaning of conceptual pieces is apparent to people who have studied conceptual art to a high level and 'speak the language' - so that they might get something from a piece that the rest of us would have to be told by the wall-text. This is really no different from most other highly developed academic fields; after all, a paper on topology would make very little sense to someone without at least a basic grounding in that field, but it has a great deal of meaning to people who work in it.

But this position does kind of imply that there's not much point in people who aren't schooled in conceptual art bothering to look at it.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
I thought that art was a generally pointless activity in that it is something that does not have an immediate practical purpose - such activities are arguably something that separate humans from animals. Its lack of point in the standard sense is probably one of the things that makes it art.
I don't think that the three positions you've outlined above are exhaustive. I'd say that there are various positions similar to the last one - one could be that there is some kind of meaning or value in some (though probably not all, another problem with your categories is that each assume that all conceptual art is the same and that it must be either all meaningless or all meaningful) artworks but that meaning is only accessible to people doing some kind of work - be it thought or research - to help them understand it. Arguably that's the case with artworks such as novels by Pynchon or the like and I know you don't have a problem with that.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Good question. I've always thought that you should get something out of a piece of art in order to capture your interest; if it doesn't pique your interest in any way whatsoever, or you find it utterly impenetrable with no payback, then quite frankly why bother? If there's a bit of interest and you can go away and learn more and come back and appreciate it to a greater degree, then all well and good, but if not, then life is short. As an example, opera - I don't like most of it, but there are enough bits I do find beautiful, that I'd be quite interested to talk with someone who's really into it, to learn more. Modern conceptual art, on the other hand, I've got precisely nothing from, so I really can't be arsed ever going to see any of it ever again.

I'm not sure the comparison with academic disciplines quite works, cos of the different social context - no layperson goes to a specialist topology exhibit of a weekend, but people go to see modern art in their droves and presumably hope to get something out of that experience. Although often I think that thing comes not from the artworks themselves, but from the social cachet of consuming, and being seen to consume, 'high art'.
 

Leo

Well-known member
a few thoughts from someone with a passing interest in the arts (but never studied it, etc.), keeping in mind that i'm as baffled as anyone about some work:

- point #3 seems most likely, although it doesn't always exclude non-experts.

- seems obvious, but some conceptual art is simply better than others. two elements in play: is the "concept" interesting, and is the execution of the concept done well or poorly? the ability to combine the two is what makes for a better work (again, an obvious point).

- this is sort of nitpicking but...non-representational art is not the same thing as conceptual art (although it sometimes is).

- art doesn't always have a detailed, specific "point", so it's a bit self-defeating to always expect one. a dark, brooding mark rothko painting can conjure strong emotions in a viewer without actually having a specific message or making a particular point. sometimes the vagueness enhances the impact. sometimes the mere fact that a work of art has raised an emotion is enough. also, the emotion with lack of a specific message/point provides a landscape for each viewer to interpret a meaning of their own, in their own way. the sadness conjured by a rothko manifests itself in different ways for different people.

- i rather enjoy a four-step process for viewing art: 1) look at a piece of art, 2) take a stab at determining some sort of meaning, 3) read the wall card to learn what the artist intended with the work, and then 4) view the piece again and judge how successful the artist was with the work.

- as with music, sometimes a work of art is interesting BECAUSE it's so vexing to figure out.

- don't feel like you have to understand everything. sometimes an undefinable sensation that flows over you when viewing a work is wonderful in and of itself.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I thought that art was a generally pointless activity in that it is something that does not have an immediate practical purpose - such activities are arguably something that separate humans from animals. Its lack of point in the standard sense is probably one of the things that makes it art.
I don't think that the three positions you've outlined above are exhaustive. I'd say that there are various positions similar to the last one - one could be that there is some kind of meaning or value in some (though probably not all, another problem with your categories is that each assume that all conceptual art is the same and that it must be either all meaningless or all meaningful) artworks but that meaning is only accessible to people doing some kind of work - be it thought or research - to help them understand it. Arguably that's the case with artworks such as novels by Pynchon or the like and I know you don't have a problem with that.

Well yes, I guess "point" was perhaps the wrong word, since no art has a practical "point" to it. What I meant was, what's the point in an uneducated oik like me going to see this extremely abstruse, rarefied art that I don't understand?

And yeah, I do read some literature that a lot of people would consider abstruse to the point of being extremely pretentious - Cyclonopedia springs to mind - and I like some music that a lot of people would consider very unmusical and wouldn't see the "point" in listening to. So I can't really explain this disparity between between my standards of what is worth engaging with in terms of visual art vs. literature or music. It's just one of those things I suppose. I guess you enjoy films that probably many people would consider meaningless or nonsensical. And there are probably people who enjoy conceptual art or avante-garde theatre and dance who would consider Pynchon or Burroughs to be hopelessly pretentious and abstruse.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm not sure the comparison with academic disciplines quite works, cos of the different social context - no layperson goes to a specialist topology exhibit of a weekend, but people go to see modern art in their droves and presumably hope to get something out of that experience. Although often I think that thing comes not from the artworks themselves, but from the social cachet of consuming, and being seen to consume, 'high art'.

Yep, this is what I'm wondering. Are they all getting something out of it that I'm not? (I should think probably not, because most people, like me, have not read stacks and stacks of modern art theory.) Or are they, like me, traipsing around looking at stuff they don't understand, sometimes getting a feeling of "oh, that's pretty neat" but mostly doing it, if we're entirely honest, so they can pat themselves on the back afterwards for having done something "cultured"?

And who says that seeing a gallery full of weird installations and abstract sculptures is any more "cultured" than an exhibition of Turner or Rembrandt or whatever? I think there's a sneaky prejudice against representational art that's seeped into the popular consciousness and has infused into the opinions of ordinary bods like me who have no training in art beyond high school (I mean, I didn't even do visual art at GCSE, I did drama because it was loads more fun and the art teachers were annoying dicks). So yeah, fuck it, next time I go to a gallery I'd going to see some pretty pictures. There was an exhibition of paintings from Mughal India at the Ashmolean in Oxford recently that totally blew me away.

Edit: the other day I met a sculptor who produces these sort of semi-abstract pieces based on found forms in wood and stone. Seriously, seriously impressive stuff. Just powerful and beautiful in a deep, wordless way. He talked a lot about the state of modern British art and to hear him excoriate Damien Hirst was as pleasurable as looking at his (the sculptor's) work. The fact that Hirst is a many-times millionaire and international celebrity says a lot about the relationship between art, the state, the popular consciousness and capitalism, I think. You seen his horrible fucking great pregnant woman? Ugh.
 
Last edited:

woops

is not like other people
Hey Mr Tea

I will never forgive you for not naming this thread 'Pointless but it makes us waffle to ourselves'
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
- art doesn't always have a detailed, specific "point", so it's a bit self-defeating to always expect one. a dark, brooding mark rothko painting can conjure strong emotions in a viewer without actually having a specific message or making a particular point. sometimes the vagueness enhances the impact. sometimes the mere fact that a work of art has raised an emotion is enough. also, the emotion with lack of a specific message/point provides a landscape for each viewer to interpret a meaning of their own, in their own way. the sadness conjured by a rothko manifests itself in different ways for different people.

OK, perhaps it's expecting too much to demand that each piece evoke a particular "concept". Or maybe "conceptual art" is a misleading label, or maybe (as you point out) this stems from my own confusion between conceptual, abstract and other non-representational kinds of art. (Is there an easy-to-understand definition of "conceptual art", as opposed to abstract art?)

- don't feel like you have to understand everything. sometimes an undefinable sensation that flows over you when viewing a work is wonderful in and of itself.

It's not that I don't sometimes have these sensations - it's just that I have them sufficiently rarely that paying a tenner and spending a couple of hours craning my neck seems a big expenditure for something that probably won't happen.
 

Leo

Well-known member
(Is there an easy-to-understand definition of "conceptual art", as opposed to abstract art?)

yeah, i think it might be semantics. conceptual art is a pretty specific, defined genre where the idea takes precedence over the actual finished work. a good example is sol lewitt's wall drawings, which are reproduced endlessly and can be drawn by anyone. he's quoted as saying:

"In conceptual art, the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.

abstract art is forms/colors/lines which defy reality, shapes and images that don't exist in nature.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I hope this is useful? These are from a former artist whose work I used to show and whose work I really like, she's just started a BA in art, and she's been sending me her essay questions so I can explain them to her. I thought they were quite interesting as first essay questions in a BA, they're certainly much harder that stuff I had to do at MA.

Here you go :

EXHIBITIONS:
Art of Change: New Directions from China - Hayward Gallery (ends 09.12.12)
Kiki Smith - Timothy Taylor Gallery (12.10-17.11.12)
Raymond Pettibon - Sadie Coles (03.10-17.11.12)
Goshka Macuga - Kate MacGarry (ends 27.10.12)
Peter Fischli and David Weiss - Sprüth Magers (10.10-10.11.12)
Eric Bainbridge - Camden Arts Centre (28.09-02.12.12)
Tom Friedman - Stephen Friedman Gallery (09.10-10.11)
Tino Sehgal - Tate Modern (ends 28.10.12)
Rashid Johnson - South London Gallery (28.09-25.11.12)
The Individual and the Organisation: Artist Placement Group 1966-79– Raven Row (ends 16.12.12)
Paul Sietsema – Drawing Room (ends 20.11.12)
Luc Tuymans - David Zwirner (05.10-17.11.12)

Question 1. How can a work of art take into account its viewers' subjectivity?

Include in your response to the question a discussion of how the exhibitions you choose to look at take into account, or fail to take into account, the viewer's subjectivity - in terms of their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, physical embodiment and/or socio-economic identity.

NB. The viewer's subjectivity may be taken into account in the work, either in terms of the sort of person who will look at it or in terms of what is represented or symbolised in someway within the work itself. The viewer’s subjectivity may, for example, be implicit in the spatiality of the work or its cultural references, in the type of context it is shown within, or in accompanying textual commentary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hal Foster (1996), 'The Crux of Minimalism', The Return of the Real, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Nicolas Bourriaud (2002) Relational Aesthetics, Dijon: Presses du reel.
Linda Nead (1992), 'Redrawing the Lines', in The Female Nude: art, obscenity and sexuality, London: Routledge.
Robert J. C. Young (2003) Post-colonialism: a very short introduction, Oxford University Press
Nikos Papastergiadis (2004) 'The Limits of Cultural Translation' in Over Here: international perspectives on art and culture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
John Berger (1972), Chapter 3 (pp.45-64), Ways of Seeing, London: Penguin.

Question 2. To what degree can the meaning or experience of a work of art be independent of context?

Include in your response a discussion of the sort of context you think the exhibitions you choose to look at aspire either to engage or to avoid, how they do this, and how successful they are in doing so.

NB. The context of a work of art could be taken to be its physical environment or its institutional setting; it could be its relation to social groups or historical events, as well as to other images within or without the world of art.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brain O’Doherty (1999), Inside the White Cube: The ideology of the gallery space, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Miwon Kwon (1997) ‘One Place After Another: Notes on site specificity’, October v.80 (Spring 1997), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 85-110.
Michael Fried (1998), ‘Art and Objecthood’, Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews, Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. [Also in Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: A critical anthology]
Douglas Crimp (2000), ‘This is not a museum of art’, On the Museum’s Ruins, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, [also in: Marcel Broodthaers, Minneapolis: Walker Arts Centre].
James Meyer (2009), ‘The Minimal Unconscious’, October v.130, (Fall 2009), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 141-176
Susan Sontag (1996), ‘Against Interpretation’, Against Interpretation, Vintage, London.

Question 3. How important is the medium or discipline in the reading or experience of a work of art?

Include in your response to the question a discussion of how the terms ‘medium’ and/or ‘discipline’ apply to the exhibition you choose to write about. Consider the significance of materials as used in the works of art you discuss, and the way they are used. For example, consider their significance when used in a work of art compared to that they have when found in the wider world.

NB. The medium of a work of art is not only the physical substance it is made of, but the conventions of interpretation and reception the work implies, as well as the historical and social context in which it exists. Painting as a medium, for example, is an historical evolving use of paint to make paintings within the context of varying modes of reception and interpretations. Consider some of this broader picture in your research and writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marshal Mcluhan (2003), 'The Medium is the Message', Understanding Media: The extensions of man, Corte Madera, Calif. : Gingko Press.
Clement Greenberg (1995), ‘Modernist Painting’, The Collected Essays and Criticism vol. 4: Modernism with a vengeance, 1957-1969, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rosalind Krauss (1999), A Voyage on the North Sea: Art in the Age of the Post-Medium Condition, London: Thames and Hudson.
Nicolas Bourriaud (2005) Post-production: Culture as screenplay, how art reprograms the world, New York: Lukas & Sternberg.
Boris Groys (2008), ‘Art in the Age of Digitalisation’, Art Power, Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT.
Susan Sontag (2002), ‘In Plato’s Cave’, On Photography, London: Penguin

Research:

You should use theoretical and/or historical research to inform your response to the question you choose, for which the brief bibliography mentioned under each question should serve you as a starting point. You may consider drawing in other objects to compare and contrast with the exhibition or exhibitions you focus on, whether they be other contemporary exhibitions or historical precedents, such as those dealt with in the lecture program, or other cultural objects, practices or events.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Conceptual art is the end of the narrative of avant-garde fine art, which gathered projectile-pace in the Twentieth Century and things like Fluxus signalled the end of it in the 1970s. Since the end of the 1980s it has been about auctions, stock-pricing, merchandise, critical theory, blockbuster shows. It's a perculiar market of ideas but, sadly, the ideas are weak: a lot of half-digested Baudrillard and Foucault augmenting blatant chancers like Damien Hirst, David Shrigley, Martin Creed. It's rotten and pathetic, and the only thing more pathetic is the laughable characters on the margins, the critics and curators "interpreting" this stuff for spectators and punters. This is bascially maintaining an illusion of legitimacy and value which allows dealers to work and score big price hits. The critics, in particular, are even worse than the academics, as they walk a fine line between cynicism and naivete that makes them look both stupid and venal. They have their own interests at stake too: their newspapers columns, journal interviews, TV series. There is little difference between the art world and fashion world now, and there may as well be no division -- the fashion world has more coherence and in a way more authenticity and serves a real-world function, to inspire and supply the high street. Anna Wintour is still connected to the logistical supply chain. The art market serves no such function, beyond sending visual signals to the world of graphic and product design and media aesthetics. Although it is interesting that the likes of Mondrian, Matisse and Warhol still exert greater subliminal influcence on these areas than, say, Fluxus or the YBAs.

Those big Abstract Expressionist and Minimalist canvases are what they are: massive Romantic or Classical objects. If you remember Clement Greenberg's essays, Pollock was in a tradition, a line of linked and progressive fathers and innovators. He split the difference between T.S. Eliot and Leon Trotsky. The conceptual art movement was, from the beginning, very different and in part opposition to this. It does not oppose anything now -- even at its most nihilistic, it is striking how well-attuned and media and market savvy these wild young souls are. Nihilistic idceas have great cultural and commercial cache, because these are simply the same thing. There is no opposition or agitation in nihilism in the art world -- the only problem is the stench of fraud and fad. So the smartest collectors would have followed Saatchi's hit-or-miss art school scouring, but may be more cautious now -- how exactly will these investments turn out.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Mistersloane, thanks for that, looks interesting - I'll get a cuppa in a bit and try and digest it.

Rich: yeah, I was thinking of Louise's thesis when I started this thread. I knew it was on conceptual art but I hadn't realized the title was such general question.

Ollie:

If you remember Clement Greenberg's essays...

Afraid those passed me by, old bean, but this:

conceptual art [...] does not oppose anything now -- even at its most nihilistic, it is striking how well-attuned and media and market savvy these wild young souls are. Nihilistic idceas have great cultural and commercial cache, because these are simply the same thing. There is no opposition or agitation in nihilism in the art world -- the only problem is the stench of fraud and fad.

makes sense. The idea that someone like Hirst is some sort of transgressive enfant terrible is utterly laughable, I mean he could hardly be any more Establishment if his surname was Windsor.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
But that's the same in all fields isn't it? The well-travelled path from nonentity to rebel artist followed by wider success and absorption into the mainstream with all that brings - including the occasional lip-service to still being part of the underground. Doesn't matter if you're a film-maker or a musician or an artist. The fact that Hirst is now pretty much the art equivalent of "Sir" Mick Jagger shouldn't be used as a stick to beat conceptual art in general or even Hirst's earlier work.
 

Leo

Well-known member
interesting with some valid points, craner, although a fair bit more cynical than how i see it. not really fair to paint all conceptualists as frauds just because of damien hirst's career path. i wouldn't put him in the same category as john baldessari or tino sehgal.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 for 30 grams of merda d’artista. The artist, apparently an honest and talented man, canned the stuff and sold it for the price of 30 grams of gold to express his utter disgust with the art world. A couple years later, in 1961, he died of drink. At least half the 90 cans he produced have since exploded, just as the artist intended: “I hope these cans explode in the vitrines of the collectors.” Now the Tate treats it as a masterpiece—again, as the artist expected.

Was the artist right to drink himself to death? Last time we visited the Museum of Modern Art in New York we went through the permanent collections and were struck by the number of pieces that seemed like experiments in technique for some future work that was never produced and never could have been produced. What’s the point? Isn’t it natural that a man with talent would step back from the mess, decide it was stupid and pointless, and (since he had the artistic compulsion) produce something that expressed how stupid and pointless it is? And could not such a work in fact constitute the great artistic work that sums up the spiritual reality of the age? On that view, maybe the Tate paid too little. They should have sold their Turners and put all their assets into the one work that allows us to contemplate perfectly what—it seems—the modern art museum has become: an industrial container for the very thing the Tate just purchased.​

--Jim Kalb
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Although there seems to be some debate as to whether the cans really contain the advertised goods doesn't there? Just to add another question about authenticity or something to the discussion.
 

Leo

Well-known member
The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 for 30 grams of merda d’artista. The artist, apparently an honest and talented man, canned the stuff and sold it for the price of 30 grams of gold to express his utter disgust with the art world. A couple years later, in 1961, he died of drink. At least half the 90 cans he produced have since exploded, just as the artist intended: “I hope these cans explode in the vitrines of the collectors.” Now the Tate treats it as a masterpiece—again, as the artist expected.

Was the artist right to drink himself to death? Last time we visited the Museum of Modern Art in New York we went through the permanent collections and were struck by the number of pieces that seemed like experiments in technique for some future work that was never produced and never could have been produced. What’s the point? Isn’t it natural that a man with talent would step back from the mess, decide it was stupid and pointless, and (since he had the artistic compulsion) produce something that expressed how stupid and pointless it is? And could not such a work in fact constitute the great artistic work that sums up the spiritual reality of the age? On that view, maybe the Tate paid too little. They should have sold their Turners and put all their assets into the one work that allows us to contemplate perfectly what—it seems—the modern art museum has become: an industrial container for the very thing the Tate just purchased.​

--Jim Kalb

i presume you posted this for a laugh, right? basically, he's saying "i don't like it/get it, so it's stupid and pointless. why doesn't the artist make some 'good' art?" by his logic, the guys in basic channel are fucking idiots because they released records that essentially loop the same beat for nine minutes, and andy warhol is a moron because "empire" was a shot of the same building for eight hours.

i may not care for some art, but that doesn't make that work stupid and pointless. err, isn't that a pretty juvenile viewpoint?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
But that's the same in all fields isn't it? The well-travelled path from nonentity to rebel artist followed by wider success and absorption into the mainstream with all that brings...

True, but some people manage to 'keep it real' a bit better than others. You don't see Chuck D advertising trainers. Genesis P-Orridge was notably absent from the Olympics opening ceremony.
 
Last edited:
Top