Painting From Life vs. From Photos
Art without a “conceptual edge” can nowadays seem “out of it”, un-hip, old-fashioned. Art that is little more than the ultra-minimalist depiction of a concept can sell for millions. Why is the conceptual trendy, and how to cash in?
In my previous post I argued that conceptual art is just another representational art form. The illusion created — that of a concept — is comparable to the illusion of space created with linear perspective. Why should the representation of concepts in particular be so fashionable these days?
Looking back, we see that two great art movements of the 19th and 20th centuries were, in essence, anti-conceptual. Impressionism freed the landscape from the pedantic framework of “history painting.” Abstract Expressionism avoided the representations of concepts as much as of space or form. The non-conceptual natures of Impressionism and Abstract Expressionism, which gave these movements much of their freshness and life, were of course reactions to the, before then, norm that all art should have a conceptual component.
The come-back of the concept can be seen as a reaction, in turn, to the virtual ban on concepts in the above-mentioned art movements.
What is striking about the purer form of conceptual art today is its claim to transcend much of the material/technical components of art. True, someone spent a lot of time cutting diamonds for Damian Hirsch’s diamond skull, and someone spent a lot of time mounting them, but both of these activities are non-artistic craft operations. The artistic aspect of the diamond skull rests almost solely in the concepts which it represents. The work is, artistically-technically speaking, as flat as a perspective painting seen from the side; indeed, that’s part of the point.
Thus, the conceptual craze is in part a return to the old norm (art should contain a conceptual component), in part a claim to transcend art’s basis in the material-technical — a nice mix of the comforting and the revolutionary.
But with art as with fashion, it is a mistake to focus too much on Now, since the art of Now was made in a Past that is already, by definition, out of date. If one is thinking about how to make the next great conceptual art piece, one is already lost playing catchup derivative baseball. The challenge is to do The Next Big Thing.
What will that be?
The answer is obvious: Ultra-Minimal Non-Conceptualism.
Yes, Ultra-Minimal Non-Conceptualism. Think of it as conceptual art, without all those stuffy concepts. Indeed, contemporary conceptual art will reek of musty arm chairs and stale cigar smoke in comparison to the freshness of Ultra-Minimal Non-Conceptualism. Ultra-Minimal Non-Conceptualism, the art of the future and, most important, where the money will be.
Time to get to work…
Karl, you’re insane.
All art is conceptual art. You’re wrong in your assessment of Impressionism. (Yes, I know I should write “I disagree with your view of Impressionism” but I guess I’m too cranky today for that)
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to your last post. :-)
Karl:
Thought of it. Next?
Great concept, but how to represent it?
Steve–
Like this:
June,
How much are you selling that for?
Karl,
In your former life as a scientist, it was all about ideas that work. Should it be different in art, except perhaps in the definition of “work?”
When you look at small bits of color placed side by side in close proximity, your eye will mix them to form other colors not physically present.
One should paint representations of modern life, not images based on history or myth.
A painting is a flat object, therefore it should represent itself as a flat object and not attempt to depict the illusion of depth.
There are archetypal images programmed into the human psyche. An artist’s role is to make them manifest.
(excerpts from the upcoming book Poor But Ernest Attempts to Paraphrase the Concepts Of Impressionism And Abstract Impressionism, by David Palmer)
aren’t the images of history and myth also archetypes?
aren’t the images of history and myth also archetypes?
That’s a good question. You’ll have to ask the Abstract Expressionists.
PS – My editor pointed out that the title of my book should refer to Abstract Expressionists, not Abstract Impressionists. He also suggested I not come up with book titles in the morning before I’ve had my coffee.
But David, You are so very clever before your coffee – I hope your editor appreciates that :)
Seriously, well said about the concepts of those two movements. I don’t understand the overall premise of this post, I must admit.
Steve,
I just put the art I didn’t conceive of and didn’t execute onto Ebay. We’ll have a test of Karl’s conception (not to be confused with Karl’s art).
June:
I’m thinking of bidding.
Can I bid using conceptual money?
Arthur, Of course you can’t bid with conceptual money. All money is conceptual, that is to say irrelevant, albeit feeling real. Hence it’s got too much baggage.
I’m reminded of Boggs — hey, if you have some Bogg Bills, I’ll take ’em. I’ll meet you in the parking lot….
I feel so impoverished, a lack of money and other concepts.
June:
Is Boggs that guy who draws his own money?
Jay, Indeed it is Boggs, the Bill Drawer. D. knows him — we just had a little conversation about him the other day on A&P. But I can’t remember which post.
June:
Sorry, I’ve been bogged down lately. Doing it on a bank account instead of paper.
Does anyone have an Abstract Expressionist handy? I have a question…
“Do not confuse with the beautiful what other periods called the beautiful. Go further: be bold enough, in almost every case to say that what was the beautiful thirty or forty years ago is now the ugly. See whether you can bear the painting of men like Vanoo and of Boucher who delighted our grandmothers and who were the admiration of people who may well have been difficult to please, like Voltaire for example, and other great minds of the time. It will be necessary for another revolution to change people’s ideas once more before we can work out from all this material just the men who have true merit.”
Eugene Delacroix (1798 – 1863)
Thats something i don’t get. Why do people go with whats trendy and not what appeals to them, that is after all what art is supposed to do. I don’t know if i could, should i ever become good enough, just sell my work. I’d have a problem with that if someone were buying it because it were trendy and not because it appealed to them. ok im sorry i deviated from your post.
Wolfbaby:
Wolfgang is that you? My very own grandson? But you are only two years old. I know that you want to drive the family car, but I don’t think anybody is ready to buy your chalk drawings on the driveway quite yet.
Jay,
your correct I should have refrained from commenting on something I obviously know nothing about. However, I was not insulting anyone, perhaps you could have refrained as well.
W.
I think that this forum’s general position is pretty cynical in relation to the art market. I am a bit involved with the artworld and I have known many people who have bought art and I cannot think of one person who bought a piece because they considered it “trendy”. I think most people buy for the “appeal”.
D.,
I think you’re right about Karl’s position in particular, but I don’t know how general that is–depends on what you mean by cynical. Maybe someone should come up with a list of propositions for us to vote on so we could see.
wolfbaby,
Haven’t seen you in a while — perhaps Jay’s style of humor startled you. But your comment was quite apropos. Even if not, I’m all for deviation.
I’ve always heard that the advice to collectors and would-be collectors is to only buy what you love, if for no other reason than you’ll care about it more and probably build a better collection. But I suppose there really are institutional or other investors who are truly buying on speculation that prices will rise, and they want to get in on something new that is hopefully headed higher, i.e. trendy. Somehow it seems unfortunate, as it appears to distort what kind of art gets done. But do we really want that money spent on something other than art?
Anyway, it’s unclear that what happens at those upper levels of the art market has much to do with me or you. I see your point about selling, but for my part, I hope someone does buy my photos because they think they’re the latest trend…
Wolfbaby:
My apologies for startling you, as Steve described it. That said, I do have a grandson by that name who is an avid kid and who draws on the sidewalk when the opportunity presents itself. I only seem arch.
A trend is a moving stamp of approval for many. If you are the kind of person who can decide value for his or her own self, then I applaud you as one of a number of such souls on this site.
Steve,
I understand what your saying. I just think once an artist goes with what is trendy, once you go with what is popular an artist will stop doing what they feel. Once that happens you lose something special. Perhaps I am naive or foolish. to me art is expression- passion. Once an artist caters to what others want instead of there own passions they lose the spark that made there art so wonderful in the first place.
Jay,
I understand, no worries.
Right! To thine own self be true.
I think naivete — whether that fits you or not — is one of those interesting qualities that can be both a weakness and a strength.
has not this already been tried,eg a blank piece of paper,although i suppose the paper it self is the concept.i think your article brilliantly funny,its about time the boring earnest approach balloon was pricked.i thought a lot of this concept stuff was a joke.old and bad jokes at that.re hashed surely