"It seems to me that basic essence of visual art is that it is something pleasurable to behold prior to any explanation, theory or justification with words. It communicates immediately even if the viewer does not immediately understand the artist's intent or meaning. It is like being taken by the physical beauty of a person before knowing their mind and personality……The ideology of conceptual art is to cut off the head (concept) of the body of art (form and technique) and display the head in a jar as though that's all that is important. It is a cynical and iconoclastic view of visual art."
Conceptual Art: What Is It Good For?
By James Mellick
I didn't grow up in a poor family but my dad worked two jobs and my mother clipped coupons to put food on the table and send their kids to college. We learned that with education, discipline and diligence we could achieve our goals. We didn't have money to spend on fine things and learned from our mother that we could create beauty in the home by painting pictures and building furniture. The beauty and the history of art was a whole different world for us and far from being jaded or bored by it, we wanted to create beauty like we saw in the museums and galleries. Along with wanting to learn about the world, we also wanted to learn skills for creating beauty.
I doubt that a person born into similar circumstances could become a "conceptual artist". It would seem impractical and a waste of time. My late brother David was an artist and a conceptual person. He earned his doctorate in philosophy so, his thinking was a little more "Augustinian" (analytical and rational) while my thinking was more "Franciscan" (emotional and intuitive). Of course David often tapped into philosophy for the content of his paintings but the painting were not only about communicating an idea, they were also about communicating the aesthetic experience of composition, color, and the texture of brushstrokes. The better the painting, the more powerful was the communication of the idea. It is the difference between poetry and prose. His insight conveyed in painting was poetry. When he published in a journal of philosophy, it was prose. He didn't brand his philosophy as "artistic conceptualism" although he took a creative and accessible approach to his writing. I don't brand my visual art "conceptual art" even though it is full of ideas and meaning. He would have needed to deconstruct the structure of reason and language. To be a conceptual artist, I would need to deconstruct the structure of form and technique. I would have to promote a big lie and revise the meaning of "beauty".
What does one do when they want teach art at the university but they have poor skills in drawing, painting or sculpting? They revise the definition of those art forms, deconstruct the characteristics that distinguish them and call themselves "conceptual artists". It is not a matter of making a painterly sculpture or a sculptural painting-they deconstruct the meaning of those terms to where they mean nothing. They can call a sculptural form or an installation in the middle of the floor, a "print". Of course, so much arrogance combined with so little talent, is a slap in the face to the history of printmaking.
What does one do when they don't have the basic talent or patience to give physical form to an idea by manipulating materials in a skillful way to end up with an object that exhibits the unity of concept, form and technique? Along with calling themselves "conceptual artists", they can put several poorly designed objects together on the floor of the gallery (power in numbers) and call it an installation. It is as though such artists have an attention disorder to focus on and finish any one thing. No part of the installation is significant by itself but a mediocre idea can be obscured by monumentality or by the number of objects in the installation. No one part of the installation has the power to stand on its own but can only be considered in the company of other mediocre objects. If a poor idea, like a lie, is repeated enough, it gains prominence.
What does an "artist" do when they find that discipline, hard work and long hours in the studio is not for them? When they would rather be playing computer games on big screens, playing with their techno-gadgets or creating virtual realities rather than facing the material world? What does a person do when they realize that they can't compete with the very talented artists who are making more beautiful and more meaningful real objects of art in the linage of art history? They call themselves "conceptual artists" and reject the physicality of fine art. Where is the formal beauty in video screens, power chords and clip on lights? Where is the lasting significance when the only permanence can be found in verbal and photo documentation in a show catalog?
It seems to me that basic essence of visual art is that it is something pleasurable to behold prior to any explanation, theory or justification with words. It communicates immediately even if the viewer does not immediately understand the artist's intent or meaning. It is like being taken by the physical beauty of a person before knowing their mind and personality. Like a beautiful person with a wonderful personality and mind, the beauty of the art work holds the viewer's attention and when the meaning is contemplated and revealed, the aesthetic experience is intensified-like a beautiful person with a wonderful mind and personality. The ideology of conceptual art is to cut off the head (concept) of the body of art (form and technique) and display the head in a jar as though that's all that is important. It is a cynical and iconoclastic view of visual art.
What I resent about the term "conceptual art" is that it suggests that there is less thought or meaning that goes into the traditional object of art. It suggests that "conceptual art" has "gravitas" and is more intelligent. Why not call it "conceptual process" because it's focus is on process while the "art" that gives visual pleasure is mostly absent. Art departments are hiring conceptual artists because they want to be contemporary and with "what's happening now". These people with interesting ideas and equipped only with verbal and writing skills could just as easily have been hired by philosophy or psychology departments and yet they take up positions in art departments that could have been occupied by visually skilled teachers. I admit that if art departments are only enrolling students who are "artsy wannabe's" without talent but they can bull-crap and verbally justify their mediocre art projects, then, a conceptual process teacher might be a good match for the department.
Conceptual art is like a synopsis of a Shakespearian play without poetic form; stripped of the language and technique of word crafting that speaks to a unique style. It is like the notes, diagrams and sketches in Leonardo's journal without examples of finished work. If he had never completed a painting or sculpture bringing these ideas into material form, he would have been considered a conceptual artist before his time.
Conceptual artists are a lot like the "blond bimbo" tabloid celebrities in popular culture. One might ask, "What do they do (make)?" "How do they make a living?" Their art is unmarketable (in fact, they probably look down on materialism, capitalism and the art market) so they have to sell their ideas. Who wants to buy their ideas? If they are clever enough, they can "educate", manipulate the media and critics and convince people to buy their ideas.
The first thing that a fresh graduate student schooled in conceptual art needs to do is get a faculty position because schools are a parallel universe of virtual reality dealing in ideas. Ideas that don't become art objects, don't require studios, equipment, raw materials, the noise or the mess. Conceptual art does not need much of a budget. It is as close as you can get to art history lecture and still call it a studio course. The young graduate candidate always come with high recommendations from the like minded graduate school that gave birth to them. So, a conceptual artist can sustain themselves by latching on to a supporting institution, like Kato latched on to O.J. Simpson. This is the best thing to do if you are not good at writing grants or were not born into a wealthy family.
There are two other alternatives to survive as a conceptual and/or installation artist. One is to be born into wealth like Paris Hilton. The other is suck up to wealthy private foundations and live off government grants-essentially pimping oneself, like Anna Nicole Smith. I still have to ask, what did these people do or create to become a celebrity? What did they contribute to culture? They're not even actors or entertainers! What are they good for?