Painting From Life vs. From Photos
Conceptual art represents concepts.
That seems obvious.
The simple statement has some interesting implications, however. Let’s explore by looking first at another art-form: still life.
What does still life art represent? The still life, obviously. Each still life painting shows a given set of objects. Is the still life art the same as the still life itself? Of course not. It’s a representation: the appearance of a still life on a canvas is an illusion.
Does the artist create the objects in the still life? Perhaps he or she might throw the vases and cut the flowers, but this is not essential.
Must the objects be valuable or beautiful? Of course not. The value of the still life art depends on the quality of the representation, not on the quality of the things represented.
Now, back to conceptual art. My claim is that conceptual art, and the conceptual component of art in general, is not so much a concept as the representation of a concept. Must the artist invent the concept? No. Must the concept be true or valuable or interesting? No. What is important is that the concept is well represented. What’s also important is not to confuse the concept represented with a “real” concept. The represented concept is only an illusion of a concept. It might even be a representation of a fantasy concept.
Now, why does so much conceptual art seem like “BS,” to borrow from a recent comment writer?
Is it because the concepts are lousy? No, I’m claiming that the quality of the concepts is not important in conceptual art. So, if the work seems like BS, I’d say it is because the representation of concepts is lousy. We can’t expect that just because we have a great concept, that we can make great art out of it, anymore than possession of a great still life object insures a great still life painting.
Does art need to represent concepts to be art? Must art have a conceptual edge? I’d say, following the reasoning above, No. If the conceptual aspect is only the representation of a concept, it is no more mandatory than the representation of perspective or realistic human proportions or the lighting of a still life in a given work. If it enhances the work, great. But trying to add some concept-representation just for the sake of it might be like throwing a still life into a landscape; it might seem out of place, it might detract.
Detract from what? From the emotional impact of the art, which is what art is about.
…the emotional impact of the art, which is what art is about.
The emotional impact of art depends in part, I think, on the concept.
Karl,
Your reasoning is delicious.
But you jump from that to a definition of art and thus into the soup (or is that off the deep end into the brink?).
I must say that most “concepts” are pretty old and well-worn. Once in a while I run across some new idea but not often (of course, age has something to do with this).
So indeed, interest has to lie in the rendition, not the idea. Of course, the rendition can be so novel as to be striking and fascinating — 4.5 minutes of silence, for example.
But an idea, once heard and understood, is inert until it is worked on, visually or intellectually or socially or philosophically or politically or whatever.
What rings my bell is when the idea is electrifyingly presented, presented in such a way as to make me see the idea anew. Or to read Wechsler on Robert Irwin, where the idea(s) is presented as it was worked over time until every niche and cranny has been investigated.
“Of course not. It’s a representation: the appearance of a still life on a canvas is an illusion.”
Could you please expand on what you mean by illusion?
Thanks.
Wouldn’t this depend on whether “still life” was referring to the items arranged to be painting or to the painting itself? I think the term can be used in both ways. The painting is an “illusion” of the items arranged but is also itself a still life.
What I find fascinating about Conceptual Art is that the root of the movement is in text. As an idea manifests in the mind, the next necessary step is to talk or write about it–words. The artist, Mel Bochner, explores this wordy area of ideas in a really great way. And of course, my hero, Bruce Nauman, has neon signs dedicated to the visualization of an idea leaving the mind.
Karl, I’m totally with you that BS is a result of bad representation. The BS comes from the artist struggling to explain why his/her work didn’t adequately represent the ideas manifesting in his/her head.
Karl:
Please bear with me, but did you mention that you set up a temporary tableau of figures and items when preparing a painting? I know that Thomas Hart Benton used a similar method.
If so, could you describe that, or such a procedure in the terms of this discussion? An earlier post had me thinking about sketches and how they can be stepping stones between a starting impulse to act, through the acquisition, development and integration of ideas, the testing of means, creation of a virtual blueprint in some instances and on to the final product. It seems to me that each intermediate sketch, if it represents a step forward, should have its own place on the context/procedure spectrum.
…when the idea is electrifyingly presented, presented in such a way as to make me see the idea anew. Or to read Wechsler on Robert Irwin…
I agree. Execution without concept is as unsatisfying as concept without execution. Irwin’s work is a great example of the best of both concept and execution.
One of my favorite things to do here in L.A. is go over to the gardens at the Getty. Just walking around there is a great discovery, lots of amazing details. And then standing in a place where you get an overview and seeing how the pieces fit together. Or walking along the path that crosses back and forth across the stream, and hearing how the gurgle of the water has been “tuned”, how it changes as you progress from the upper to the lower part.
If this was just a bunch of nice plants and a stream out in nature, it would still be a very pleasant experience. But there’s also a high degree of concept there, and that takes the experience to a whole new level.
In addition to Weschler’s book on Irwin, Seeing is Forgetting…, there’s also a wonderful book on the Getty Garden, with extensive conversations between Irwin and Weschler about Irwin’s experience creating the garden, including his learning process in dealing with a new medium, and his conflicts w/ the architect.
Isn’t all representation on canvas just an illusion.
When you say “So, if the work seems like BS, I’d say it is because the representation of concepts is lousy”, I would like to add that in some cases having a poor understanding of the ‘frame of reference’ under which a artwork was created could also lead to them labeling the artwork as BS.
Thanks, David, for another Weschler reference. I’m on it. I find that I can read almost anything by Weschler; like John McPhee he makes me feel smarter than I really am.
My take in combination with the ideas nicely presented by Karl above:
Conceptual art depends upon:
-Strength of the concept presented (Sati would strong concept if presented properly)
-Acumen of representation (better done works are stronger)
-Additional overlays of meaning (in terms of frame of references)
These three in concert raises the emotional power of an artwork…
I find that I can read almost anything by Weschler…
He also has a book out about my (missing) friend J.S.G. Boggs, who draws money and then tries to spend it. I have the book on my shelf, but it’s still in the “unread” section. Actually, Boggs’ work is an interesting combination of concept and execution.
Weschler on Boggs was the first thing I remember reading by him — bits in the New Yorker and then the book itself.
I didn’t know Boggs was missing, but you are right — that might have been my intro to Conceptual art, also.
I didn’t know Boggs was missing…
June, I had tried calling and e-mailing him awhile back, and everything had been disconnected, including his web site. I just did some digging around tonight on the web, and he seems to be in jail in Tallahassee on drug charges.
I don’t know him that well, but we hung out together in L.A. a few times and I really enjoyed his company. I hope things work out for him.
art is the greatest thing in life art is not appreance its illusion now if we dont have art how would any subjects work example math how r we going to draw shapes in math geog how r we souposed to draw maps its really obvious its special
You’re not quite getting it…
Art throughout history = Art Object. No statements needed.
Conceptual art = pointer to idea. Statements needed.
Anything in between shows the artist doesn’t know what they are doing.
Rauchenberg said it best “My paintings are invitations to look somewhere else”