Well I can't. Because I'm not you. Most of the time I enjoy 'conceptual art' shows, but it's a complex relationship and rarely an instantaneous one, which makes it difficult to judge fairly compared to other types of art that tend to produce - or demand - more visceral or immediate responses. The best comparison I can make is to works (books, movies etc) that I am still thinking about days or even weeks later. For example, I still recall the Invisible show at the Hayward gallery (which was a decade ago now), simply because a single simple concept was explored in wildly different and inventive ways, none of which really needed a little card to "explain" them. But the actual show itself was a flat experience, simply because of the premise! It required time and space to assimilate what were, fundamentally, "empty spaces". And it doesn't help that sometimes one needs that time and space with the actual work, which is often difficult in a busy gallery. You mentioned the Rothko effect, and I can attest to it - it took maybe twenty minutes sitting in the particular space for the Seagram murals to suddenly become utterly transcendent for me. And I can't explain it any more than I can explain any religious experience I may or may not have had in a way that wouldn't make me sound ridiculous. Likewise, obviously, that doesn't mean that everything works for everyone. I have seen shows that I considered utterly pretentious and yet I was wowed by things like the Invisible show which I imagine a lot of folk would consider the height of pretentiousness. All I know is that the shows that work for me changed the way I saw the world, and in the end I tend to think that's what "art" should be about, whatever other labels it is given.
I can, I recognise, be a terrible pedant about this sort of thing. But I don't think 'conceptual art' is the right term here. Conceptualism was a movement in the 60s and 70s which said the idea itself was the work of art, so the less distraction from that the better. As mentioned by AP Fallon in the predecessor thread, this was in part a reaction to the commodification of the art market - you can own an object but not an idea. It was in many ways a sequel to Dada and, something which often gets missed, like Dada was a provocation that was often very funny. The Invisible art show mentioned by Scurra was at points downright hilarious!
These days, where such things as non-fungible tokens exist, Conceptualism is less of a thing. Different times, different strategies.
The Instagrammable art we have today seems to me to be precisely the opposite. The point of a giant doliey on a car is it seems the sort of thing you should photograph, and you do. The art and the stuff on the label seem to be only tenuously connected, if that.
Do you know I once waxed lyrical about the difference between Italian and Russian Futurism for twenty minutes, until people attacked me with sticks?
I’ve been thinking about this on and off since I saw the Turner Prize rooms at the Tate. For me the answer is that the art is the thing and the idea together and when the art is good, it creates a greater whole. That’s not the only way to do art but it’s a way that can work.
And perhaps - when it works - the tension between what the thing looks like and the idea behind it is where that greater whole comes from. I can enjoy a car with a gigantic doily on top as a thing in itself. If I know the artist wanted to convey something about her Sikh-Scottish childhood then I’m got a bunch of new ways to think about it. It’s not merely a thing; it’s part of an autobiography. And again, that doesn’t make it inherently better or worse than the pure abstraction of a Rothko or the narrative of the Bayeux Tapestry - it’s just another way to make art
Well I can't. Because I'm not you. Most of the time I enjoy 'conceptual art' shows, but it's a complex relationship and rarely an instantaneous one, which makes it difficult to judge fairly compared to other types of art that tend to produce - or demand - more visceral or immediate responses. The best comparison I can make is to works (books, movies etc) that I am still thinking about days or even weeks later. For example, I still recall the Invisible show at the Hayward gallery (which was a decade ago now), simply because a single simple concept was explored in wildly different and inventive ways, none of which really needed a little card to "explain" them. But the actual show itself was a flat experience, simply because of the premise! It required time and space to assimilate what were, fundamentally, "empty spaces".
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't help that sometimes one needs that time and space with the actual work, which is often difficult in a busy gallery. You mentioned the Rothko effect, and I can attest to it - it took maybe twenty minutes sitting in the particular space for the Seagram murals to suddenly become utterly transcendent for me. And I can't explain it any more than I can explain any religious experience I may or may not have had in a way that wouldn't make me sound ridiculous.
Likewise, obviously, that doesn't mean that everything works for everyone. I have seen shows that I considered utterly pretentious and yet I was wowed by things like the Invisible show which I imagine a lot of folk would consider the height of pretentiousness. All I know is that the shows that work for me changed the way I saw the world, and in the end I tend to think that's what "art" should be about, whatever other labels it is given.
I can, I recognise, be a terrible pedant about this sort of thing. But I don't think 'conceptual art' is the right term here. Conceptualism was a movement in the 60s and 70s which said the idea itself was the work of art, so the less distraction from that the better. As mentioned by AP Fallon in the predecessor thread, this was in part a reaction to the commodification of the art market - you can own an object but not an idea. It was in many ways a sequel to Dada and, something which often gets missed, like Dada was a provocation that was often very funny. The Invisible art show mentioned by Scurra was at points downright hilarious!
ReplyDeleteThese days, where such things as non-fungible tokens exist, Conceptualism is less of a thing. Different times, different strategies.
The Instagrammable art we have today seems to me to be precisely the opposite. The point of a giant doliey on a car is it seems the sort of thing you should photograph, and you do. The art and the stuff on the label seem to be only tenuously connected, if that.
Do you know I once waxed lyrical about the difference between Italian and Russian Futurism for twenty minutes, until people attacked me with sticks?
I’ve been thinking about this on and off since I saw the Turner Prize rooms at the Tate. For me the answer is that the art is the thing and the idea together and when the art is good, it creates a greater whole. That’s not the only way to do art but it’s a way that can work.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps - when it works - the tension between what the thing looks like and the idea behind it is where that greater whole comes from. I can enjoy a car with a gigantic doily on top as a thing in itself. If I know the artist wanted to convey something
about her Sikh-Scottish childhood then I’m got a bunch of new ways to think about it. It’s not merely a thing; it’s part of an autobiography. And again, that doesn’t make it inherently better or worse than the pure abstraction of a Rothko or the narrative of the Bayeux Tapestry - it’s just another way to make art