Why conceptual art is no longer relevant- And what makes a piece meaningful

[putorila]

Hello! A while ago I made this paper for my university about the relevance of conceptual art (to all your Duchamps and Banana on wall), but I didn't want to dismiss the original intent. Furthermore, I wanted to express what made a piece truly special.

https://pulporila.com/pulpadegorila/conceptual.html

I'm eager to hear your points of views and discuss this! You're allowed to bash me in the head too if you disagree...

EDIT: Some of the pieces here have opened my eyes, alongside remembering Teresa Margolles' trayectory. My point still stands, but I'm inclined to believe this is an issue of attitude rather than the "medium" itself, and so I've added one more paragraph and edited the title to complement this.

[xixxii]

i like conceptual art! it's neat. i don't always "get it" but there's lots of pieces that i find moving, interesting, and relevant that are conceptual art. ("Feel it Motherfuckers" by john boskovich and "Untitled (Portrait of Ross in L.A.)" by felix gonzalez-torres come to mind!)

setting aside personal preference, i think that the fact that conceptual art continues to provoke strong negative emotions in people and ongoing vehement arguments about whether or not it's really art means that it is definitely still rebellious. it's not hard to find people getting really angry about banana on wall! it is mostly famous for making people mad i think.

the quote from the critic about conceptual art is interesting to me; because she's talking about the artists' attitudes rather than the art itself.

(Regarding the conceptual artist) he wants flattery, he does not know that criticism can not only be at his service, as they are used to, it can also be transgressive. This anti-art pretends that we like everything. If we question the value of their works, they adopt the arrogant position that we do not understand. Reflection is a rational process, not a process of submission. The one who reflects, reasons and therefore questions. To demand that we not question turns artistic appreciation into a dogmatic affair.

the attitude or personality of some artists is not a particularly relevant critique of a type of art at all! there are plenty of arrogant and obnoxious artists making all kinds of art, it's not unique to conceptual art. "if we question the value of their works, they adopt the arrogant position that we do not understand" applies to every field imaginable. artists are just like that hahaha.

conceptual art itself demands reflection; reflection and questioning are integral to the genre! that's the whole point of the thing! i suppose it is often the case that there is a specific meaning to conceptual art and not as much room for reinterpretation as there might be in a different genre? but i dunno, i feel like that's just... one type of art, across the board. sometimes art has a specific meaning and sometimes it's supposed to be open to multiple interpretations, and that's true of every kind of art so again it doesn't really feel like something particularly "wrong" with conceptual art so much as a personal preference in what general kinds of art one might enjoy more than others.

i don't personally think art of any kind can ever really be "irrelevant," though, since the fact of its existence means it's relevant to somebody.

[putorila]

i like conceptual art! it's neat. i don't always "get it" but there's lots of pieces that i find moving, interesting, and relevant that are conceptual art. ("Feel it Motherfuckers" by john boskovich and "Untitled (Portrait of Ross in L.A.)" by felix gonzalez-torres come to mind!)

setting aside personal preference, i think that the fact that conceptual art continues to provoke strong negative emotions in people and ongoing vehement arguments about whether or not it's really art means that it is definitely still rebellious. it's not hard to find people getting really angry about banana on wall! it is mostly famous for making people mad i think.

the quote from the critic about conceptual art is interesting to me; because she's talking about the artists' attitudes rather than the art itself.

the attitude or personality of some artists is not a particularly relevant critique of a type of art at all! there are plenty of arrogant and obnoxious artists making all kinds of art, it's not unique to conceptual art. "if we question the value of their works, they adopt the arrogant position that we do not understand" applies to every field imaginable. artists are just like that hahaha.

conceptual art itself demands reflection; reflection and questioning are integral to the genre! that's the whole point of the thing! i suppose it is often the case that there is a specific meaning to conceptual art and not as much room for reinterpretation as there might be in a different genre? but i dunno, i feel like that's just... one type of art, across the board. sometimes art has a specific meaning and sometimes it's supposed to be open to multiple interpretations, and that's true of every kind of art so again it doesn't really feel like something particularly "wrong" with conceptual art so much as a personal preference in what general kinds of art one might enjoy more than others.

i don't personally think art of any kind can ever really be "irrelevant," though, since the fact of its existence means it's relevant to somebody.

You put it very lovingly. And regarding the criticism of the attitude of the artist (while I think it can bleed to how the art world functions), Avelina Lésper is still a controversial figure for a reason. I don't always agree with her either. Sadly, I don't think any of her blogs are in english to share more things.

I do think that there can be some moving conceptual art pieces; I've seen them myself ("Can’t Help Myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu and anything by Teresa Margolles). It CAN bring attention to important events and leave a long-lasting impact. My problem is, I think, when the execution is just lazy and the artist only relies on their name and the relevance of the theme they picked to make their piece know. However! That issue applies to any kind of art, but it is only more rampant in conceptual art, the reward of little effort.

Bottom line is... I think those creative triggers I listed are important, regardless of the genre. Like I said, that was a paper for uni of that specific topic, so I should clarify I'm not closing the doors to any sort of experimental art.

[Melooon]

If I was in a college art class and someone read this I would be super impressed! I also wanna note that the styling on your webpage is wonderful and crisp!

From what I understand, you are thinking about conceptual art as a poster-child for the worlds established art ideals at the moment (e.g. popular artists from the late 20th and early 21st century, who are now considered the current great artists), and you are asking for the opportunity to set those ideals aside, and find your own path towards something new.

As a student that's 100% what you should be doing, its the job of students (and art degrees) to sweep away past ideas and discover new unknown ones! You mention the romantic movement, which, in the 1800s was also an attempt to set aside the values of mainstream culture (e.g. the industrial revolution) - and it sounds a little like what you're looking for is a modern romantic movement? (I would say that's pretty on-point for the zeitgeist at the moment!)

I have no disagreement with any of that, but I will leave one note, just to rock the boat a little    I think that one of the greatest intros to conceptual art is a children's book called Harold and the Purple Crayon (which they made into a movie this year??) - That book is about the context of creation within a void, and redefining the world through associations and ideas, all done with the simple act of drawing with a purple crayon. Its playful and beautiful and I think it breaks the weight of conceptual art and shows its lighthearted childish side. For all of its huff puff and pomp, conceptual art is really just a kind of play 

[putorila]

If I was in a college art class and someone read this I would be super impressed! I also wanna note that the styling on your webpage is wonderful and crisp!

From what I understand, you are thinking about conceptual art as a poster-child for the worlds established art ideals at the moment (e.g. popular artists from the late 20th and early 21st century, who are now considered the current great artists), and you are asking for the opportunity to set those ideals aside, and find your own path towards something new.

As a student that's 100% what you should be doing, its the job of students (and art degrees) to sweep away past ideas and discover new unknown ones! You mention the romantic movement, which, in the 1800s was also an attempt to set aside the values of mainstream culture (e.g. the industrial revolution) - and it sounds a little like what you're looking for is a modern romantic movement? (I would say that's pretty on-point for the zeitgeist at the moment!)

I have no disagreement with any of that, but I will leave one note, just to rock the boat a little    I think that one of the greatest intros to conceptual art is a children's book called Harold and the Purple Crayon (which they made into a movie this year??) - That book is about the context of creation within a void, and redefining the world through associations and ideas, all done with the simple act of drawing with a purple crayon. Its playful and beautiful and I think it breaks the weight of conceptual art and shows its lighthearted childish side. For all of its huff puff and pomp, conceptual art is really just a kind of play 

Thank you, Melon! It means a lot. Admittedly, when you're a college student it's the time to be a little up in one's arse before settling down, hahaha.

As much as I'd like to avoid putting labels on art (personally), I think that's part of the game too, to recognize where you're standing now. It might be just me, but I feel like we just left a more cynical era and might be entering some sort of romantic movement (that can be seen especially online, with the "death of cringe culture" and what not). It's hard to pinpoint an 'ism when you might be living in it.

Also, I didn't know about that book! It's very wonderful to see whenever there is children media with themes beyond the eye. Ludic is right, I don't demonize conceptual art because it IS part of a play. And as long as it's born from that need to play and create, instead of filling a quota you think will make you "relevant", I can't bring myself to set it aside.

[candycanearter07]

Disclaimer, I was never good at understanding like the meaning behind art and other ppl in general and also did badly in art history class

but here's my thoughts

"Conceptual art" is always kinda interesting to me because it feels like the purest expression of "art is in the eye of the beholder". Like, it completely ignores the "traditional" sense of what makes something art, and instead invents one out of their own opinions and experiences. In a way, it's displaying what matters to that person in "art", same way you can tell what a traditional artist cares about by what they put effort into?

[putorila]

I thank to the people for their point of views. It has legitimately broadened my horizons and made me modify some stuff about my text.  It seems like it might be a problem of elitism/attitude... whatever you wanna call it. The less one says the better, and the more one makes the best!   

Disclaimer, I was never good at understanding like the meaning behind art and other ppl in general and also did badly in art history class

but here's my thoughts

"Conceptual art" is always kinda interesting to me because it feels like the purest expression of "art is in the eye of the beholder". Like, it completely ignores the "traditional" sense of what makes something art, and instead invents one out of their own opinions and experiences. In a way, it's displaying what matters to that person in "art", same way you can tell what a traditional artist cares about by what they put effort into?

That's correct. We shouldn't dismiss what people are trying to portray in their works, but I believe that criticism is still important to avoid flooding the world with "meaningless" art pieces that no longer speak. I'm aware that by saying this there is a risk of being EXTREMELY pretentious, so that's why I don't want to tell people how to think or interpret things... Just reflect! Make stuff! Connect with other people, be honest with yourself and enjoy the act of working! Don't get caught in the train of "I must do X because otherwise I don't matter".

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

Regarding the already quoted statement ("He wants flattery") by Avelina Lésper: From my point of view, she really doesn't understand it, and I do neither create conceptual art, nor do I like anything .

I believe that pretty much anything that a human (or thinking being, in a more general sense) does, and that exceeds the sheer necessities of existence (fluid transitions!) should be regarded as art. Putting in much effort is a statement in its own, but so is explicitly low effort - and neither of these two "poles" has a inherent value of its own, and no other principle in the creation of art has, as far as I'm concerned. In both cases, the act of the creation carries a message that can be broken down into a fundamental principle, stretched up until it fills the finest detail, or just regarded as empty and null - but all of this can only happen within the person who perceives the art, who is always the only one who can provide a meaning.