Is much of what is described as conceptual art actually art at all?
Whenever you here the likes of Tracey Emin, the Chapman Brothers, Damian Hurst etc, speak about their work, do you ever hear them say the phrase that finally makes it clear what the hell it's about? i know i don't, no matter how long i hear them talk, it's more of the same meaningless waffle that leaves you thinking, what the f**k makes that pile of s**t art?
The logical fallacy inbuilt in conceptual art is this-If anything is art, then nothing is art.
It kind of started with Marcel Duchamps fountain (a urinal to you and me) the idea of the piece being,....well the idea! Duchamp and others were no longer interested in aesthetics, but were interested in ideas-concepts, so the big thing with the urinal was it's art because the artist said so, and anything he said could be art. So conceptual art was born and it's hideously deformed mutant offspring the turner prize carries on that 'nobel' tradition.
Art no longer stands at a symbolic or representational distance from reality, but is simply any piece of reality one cares to mention.
Art should speak about the human condition, human beings saying something about existence itself, commenting in a symbolic way about their own condition.

What's really sad about todays conceptual artists is the impression that it is 'out there', or 'cutting edge'. Concept art is predictable and endorsed by most ot the big art establishments, it is in effect the establishment, receiving large amounts of money and coverage (arts council, turner prize)
When turner painted, he was trying to capture something of the divine, the transcendent-truly a great artist. The man must be turning in his grave at what his name has been associated with.

What a great question and great post there. :)

i'm often having this conversation.

I often find myself defending contemporary artists as I do believe that some people paint unorthodox things but have a real meaning behind their work. And often ignorant tw*ts slate this, it is such an easy target for the less educated and broad minded. However, nowadays I am left feeling empty and conned by the likes of many modern artists - just like all areas of life, the con merchants have got in there. it gives the real artists though a bad name. And that tracey Emin fagbuts etc on your bed - well i did a similar thing for photography in about 1995 and everyone laughed at me despite me having a genuine concept :rolleyes: roflmao

I hate people equally who only think that art is about Dutch masters in oils and 'proper' paintings. I'm not an art buff a such, i do dabble and enjoy, but personally I dont; care for Turner - i saw an exhibition and was a bit bored. Would never diss his talent mind. The question could also be - is painting things as they are art? Or just copycat? I was in an art gallery last week and most stuff was for the commercial market, still life, scenes etc. It was excelent but rather mass produced. Some philospopher once said that art is no longer are once it enters the refiication process (anyoen knwo who said it, I forget?) - as in becomes commercialised. Pure art is form the soul and not for sale. :)

God where do I get this from, must be the Budvar tlaking b*llocks again! roflmao roflmao

Oh and another point - there is a difference between art we get a buzz form cos it intersts and provokes, and what we would hang on our lounge wall to match the decor etc. When I visit a gallery or watch an art show, I want to be proked and stimulted mentally. When i hang something on my wall I want it to blend and compliment my room, even fi it isn't great. When i decorated a while ago I chose Vang Gogh prints as they are pleasnt and they colours complimented my room. :D

I know what you mean superBRAT, i think a lot of people are intimidated by a lot of art, but if it's crap people should speak out, and tell the truth as they see it.

If Turner had come back, he could have been a Monet or a Renoir, then a Van Gogh or a Gaugin and if he had died and come back again, he woudl have been a Matisse, a Dali or a Picasso but I don't think he would have ever "copied" Turner ever! Artist can't simply copy but at the same time they are trying to be original and this whole Art business nowadays is coming from a masturbation of the brain (excuse my French) and rarely from the heart. That is the problem I think but being an artist today is certainly not an easy job.

absolutely, it's about stunts that attract the most publicity!
If you look at the career trajectories they seem incredibly wealthy when they are very young, and downhill from then on.
I like my artists to suffer, maybe cut off an ear, have syphilis, be a raving alcoholic and die pennyless, maybe then i'll take em seriously!!

Oh I agree :) Art as in what we see in galleries does seem to intimidate a lot of people, and a lot of people are alienated by i too - they just don't get it or relate to what the artist is saying. I guess one reason for this is that Britain is not really an artistically minded nation. We don't focus heavily on teaching people art in the eduction system - in fact art is frowned upon as a waste of time and science takes priority (I remember beign steered away from taking art at school in favour of more 'useful' subjects). There is almost a stigma attached to studying art as opposed to anything more practical. And of course art is often viewed as pretentious and for the wealthier classes who can afford to 'waste time' doing it. Sadly these days a lot of artists do seem hollow and commercial, gimmick orientated and pretentious which makes alienates people form art rather than involving them.

And of course real art does not often make money (as per Van Gogh) and we are a society of commercially minded money grabbers in general, so we naturally steer our kids and ourselves away from it. I think this is a shame, as we can all benefit from being able to express ourselves through an artistic medium, quality aside. I'm not trained up in painting properly but I am gonna try and learn. I have done a lot of crafts though over the years liek glass painting, collage, decoupage and the sense of achievement you get form completing something yourself is amazing. We can all benefit from that, especially in an age where many of us have no control over what we do at work and dont; see a job through form start to finish and have little creative outlet at work. It goes back to Marx where he said people were alientated from the fruits of their labour due to capitalism and being part of the production line. I think art was one thing that he said was a pure and complete pursuit, although the essence can be removed when done for commercial gain.

And you said about people speaking out about art - maybe they don't feel knowledgable enough to do this? :shrug: They speak up about music, cinema etc. but they are more mainstream so they would know more about those art forms. Have to say I myself don't know enough about art to criticise it properly, but not being easily intimidated I'd still say my piece and question the intentions and motives behind a piece of work liek that vile bunch of cows suspended in formaldehyde - IMO just designed to shock and attract publicity, which of course the artist is entitled to do BUT don't dress it up otherwise I say.

Personally, I really dislike being told what is 'art' and what i should or should not like. Art is a very personal thing, in the same way as music I guess, and it's up to the individual what they like. I'm sure some people do like Tracy Emin's stuff - personally, I think she's a media-whore, and find her 'art' absolute rubbish. But that's my personal opinion and i'm sure other people think she's a genius. But for people to tell me that it's genius and how could i possibly not think that? - that irritates me.

This discussion reminds me of a very funny story.....

'Bin bag' art thrown into crusher by Tate cleaner

An eminent German artist has had a prized work thrown out with the rubbish by staff at Tate Britain.

Organisers of the gallery's Art And The Sixties show today confessed that a bag of rubbish - part of a piece by Gustav Metzger - was placed in a crusher by a cleaner who had not realised it was art.

A Tate source said: "A cleaner doing her rounds saw the bag of rubbish on the floor and threw it out with the rest of the trash. It wasn't roped off, how was she to know?"

The gaffe happened on 30 June, immediately before Art and The Sixties opened to the public.

It is understood the Millbank gallery has offered to compensate the 78-year-old artist for damage to his work. The bag was retrieved from the compactor, but Metzger is understood to have decided his work had been so badly damaged that he created a new bag of rubbish as a replacement.

The substitute is now chained up in a box at night. Metzger invented autodestructive art in 1959. It is defined as "constructions having a finite existence".

Link to article here

Don't you think that art should be a reflection of our times? No point buildin greek columns for ever, is it? The rubbish bag is actually a pretty good description of our times.....a time in which we are all creative artists and we all create our rubbish bags!!!! don't we? ;)

Well we can use ribbish bags as a metaphor to reflect and describe our times, and I think that is a good idea but that can be done without making one up and claiming to be an artist. That's what annoys me, soem of these ideas are hardly original anyway, if we all sit back and think we can come up with some excellent concepts and metaphors - do we really need to stick them in phsycial form in galleries though?

Yep! It's called Comic art!

My problem with some of today's "art" is two-fold.

First, a fair amount of what's coming out is just for shock-value. Even when the artist is asked "Why that medium?" or "why that take?", they fall back on defending their right to do so and not their reasons for doing so. Thus, the real answer is that they had none except that they had the right to do so and thus are doing so, whether or not it's right - the purpose is strictly shock and the right to say, I can do that if I want. It's more of a "thumb-your-nose" as the establishment or at people whom they don't like or even at everyone who's not them.

That leads to my second issue which is the fact they then want the establishment to pay for it. Too many times I've heard cited, by friends of mine in or formerly in the art world, that great societies have always funded the arts in the past. If it wasn't for political patronages, we wouldn't have the Michelangelos or Rembrants, Monets or Manets, Mozarts or Griegs. My answer is simple, those masters also only produced what their benefactors WANTED them to produce. If they went off on unwanted tangents, into areas of "shock", they were disassociated and received no more money. Why should we treat today's artists any different? Private citizens can fund extreme art if they want to. Society, through taxes, shouldn't have to nor, historically, have they ever done so until recent-modern times.

roflmao roflmao roflmao

Nice one Tenez :D I think i might take up this comic art business. My toilet oveflowing with rubbish. being flushed away wihtout thought and at intervals is a metphor for our post modern throw away society. And of course if we have a pit underneath bulging with rubbish, the is social commentary on the perils of landfill.

Yes I agree about the shock tactics. Although being devil's advocate I will say that sometimes shocking folk is a good way to get them to think abotu issues that they hide from. What some modern artists shock us with though is hardly worthy of this.

There was a big hoo-ha last year about this British woman who did living art on stage. She was parading naked with dead animals on a stage. I thought OMG, when I listened to her talk though she seemed quite sensitive and well attuned her concept, which was to make people think more carefully about life and death especially where animals are concerend. She used slaughtered cattle to make people think about factory farming and stuff. I was in two minds, I would not want to see it, but I did see her point - assuming t was honest.

Good points raised but the real chef d'oeuvres of those artists were produced by themselves without external demand and this is why often they died in poverty. Mozart being the prime example. This is the dilemna the artist has...and will always face.

In fact this is the best way to distinguish the best ones from the rest. Those who live for their art as opposed to those who live for celeb and wealth of this earth.

I think the first part of your post is very interesting, and isn't limited to art.
Film makers and writers also fall back on similar 'its my right to do it' arguements.
Bret Easton Ellis, author of American psycho was asked about the gratuitous violence and vivid depictions in the book, and answered 'they felt aesthetically right' .

Great point you make there :ok:

The media itself, including TV, films, book is just as bad for shock tactics if not worse than the art world. Many Hollywood films IMO use uneccesary and meaningless shock like violence and often there is no real point to it's use, it's purely gratuitous. The infleunce of films s much greater than that of art reachign a wider and more impressionable audience so they of all people shoudl be more responsible.

Well, my considered opinion is that much of it is not really art. But that's just to my eye. I think Dinky Jo had it right, when she said that it's an individual thing, whether you consider something to be art or not. So, to me, a dissected cow or a soiled bed with condoms scattered about is not art, but if some people really find it artistic, so be it. And if the 'artist' can manage to get paid big bucks for it, more power to him/her.

I do think that there is somewhat of an "Emporer's New Clothes" factor, though, in which people say these things are art, because someone else thinks so, and the artist is famous, so it must be good . . .

I love abstract art, it just reeks in creativity and expression :D Expressionism is my fav art form, especially artists like Van Gogh, Emin, Gillin Ayres, Ralph Steadman etc. Also i love 'narrative' art, with Kahlo( :bow: ), Munch and others.

Art is whatever creative impulse you muster. I mean you could argue that the Mona lIsa, the Scream, The birth of venus paintings arent art. Its all about perspectives and viewpoints. Its what i love about Art, its so subverse :D

And its great in galleries seeing people get all grumbly about a pencil stuck in a potato roflmao

Btw BIG-TODGER I must say, and please don't;take this the wrong way, but you are much more intelligent than I thought you were when you first joined CC. I guess your name may have made you sound a bit dodgy! roflmao But is it true? Course not, that's what they all say ;)

I suppose . . . but It's not as obvious that it takes creativity and talent to stick a pencil into a potato.


Edit: And by "as obvious", I meant in comparison to more traditional artists you mentioned. You may or may not be a fan of the particular styles of famous artists like Michaelangelo, Van Gough, Monet, Dali etc., etc., but it's hard to argue against them having had artistic talent. Most anybody with access to the materials could stick a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde, though. Maybe it's artistic creativity to think of doing that (or sticking a pencil in a potato), but I'm skeptical.

Good post, very fair and I agree re: the 'Emporer's New Clothes" bit wholeheartedly. I hate that kind fo thing.

roflmao roflmao roflmao

I love Van Gogh dl - the clour and texture is lovely, especially the one with the street cafe. I used to have that on my wall as the bright yellow and blue complimented my green colour scheme. I cant; say I'm as educated as you are on this, so cant; name half the things I like. I was very taken for interest and wierdness by an exhibition at the Tate I saw of some German surrealist whose name keeps escaping me. I keep thinking AMx Ernst, but he is one f my fave black and white phtographers so not him. Then i tink Max Frisch, but he is an author I like. H epainted in the 30s :shrug: For interest I like abstract and surrealism. I seem to have an awful lot of postcards of the stuff which I used to stick all over my wall as a student to add interest to my room. The Dali exhibition at the Tate years back was great, I knwo he's considered common but very interesting. Autumnal Canniblism is such a great name for a painting. The Lobster Telephone is mad - just a plastic lobster stuck on a phone. What was he on? roflmao

I saw a fabulous painting form about 1915 of a carousel with soldiers with wierd faces on it, it's at Nottingham Castle. Wish I knew who did it, it was really good as it was about the pointlessness and merry-go-round of war. :)

Are you thinking of Escher?

thanks very much!
the name was a joke, and i'm kind of stuck with it, i even hate my avatar and can't seem to change it. ah well!

I do;t think so, my friend liked Escher - not them. I'll get there dont worry. :)

:D Oh I love the avatar. Pat is gorgeous. Maybe not your type though but bleieve me a know a few women who are driven wild by Pat's lovely personality and of course body. :D

Sorry all, the painter I like is Max Ernst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Ernst

The photographer I like is called Ernest something and is German Jewish. I keep mixing things up :doh:

yeah he's a good looking guy no doubt about it, and great player too, shame he retired fairly young-such an athlete!

Yep, so true.

I know :(

I love my grass tennis and quickly became a Rafter fan after his Wimby performances. I recall him knocking out Agassi in a semi about 200, it was a superb mach form both players, I remember it so well as it was a hot day here and I'd been in the garden beforehand. Rafter showed pure grit. And when there was the classic final with Goran, I mean I was so torn in who to support, it was agony but a great match. An all time fave for me. :D I plumped for Goran as he'd had such a marvellous rennaissance that year and it was his last hope and our hearts were all with him. I was gutted for Pat though also. :( But I thought he'd eb back so I was fine, then he retired. Guttign really. I loved his play and he was such a great bloke.

I think the wimbledon final with Goran and Rafter was one of the best ever, the atmosphere was unbelievable, i was at work for part of it, and listened on the radio and the crowd were going wild!, i hadn't heard anything like it.
The semi with rafter and agassi was super, shame none of those guys is playing anymore.

Yep, it was indeed :) One fo the best men's semis of recent years for sure. And shame neither play now. :( Of the final, I cant; think of one so exciting since Mac and Borg with their 5 setter. I was a kid back then and that got me into tennis. :D

It was the borg mac 5 setter that got me into tennis too. i remember watching the beginning, going out to play and came in ages after and they were still playing, and that really long tie break too. My family weren't mad on tennis but watched a bit of wimbledon now and then, but i remember by the end we were all sitting around watching the match, everyone enthralled, can't remember who i wanted to win though!

Is conceptual art ART?

Well.. I could write reams on this, but I'll try to be concise.

Certainly within the last 150 years there has been a strong fashion element to art. It has always been fashionable for artists to be seen to be 'rebels', whether the impressionists, the dada movement, cubist artists, right through to the likes of Warhol, Bacon, etc etc. I am sure that many of them had their art questioned in the same way that conceptual art is being questioned as art here.

Of the ones mentioned, Pop art is possibly the nucleus of how things have become in all areas of art. Warhol famously said that everyone would one day have their 15 minutes of fame. His work was considered simplistic (screen prints, anyone?) and had a conceptual basis toit. He behaved like a pop star, surrounded himself with the 'it' folk of the day.

Does that paragraph not sound like a blueprint for Hirst, Emin et al?? Does it not also ring true in terms of the way that pop music, TV programmes have developed over the years?

Art is in a strange position though. The cool thing in art is to be seen as a rebel, to push boundaries. The general social trend of course moving away from anti-intellectualism. And as mentioned, art is fashion-orientated So how to combine these aspects?

As is already mentioned, shock tactics can be hugely effective. The hardest part though is to find something that seems effortless (cobbled together over a coffee and cig/ line of coke break, as they will tell the papers) but also experimental, and not alienate the public.

However, this is where the marketing machine kicks in. Often being truly experimental does alienate people. It ought to!! If it's in line with public perception then it's not radical.. therefore the job of marketing is to tell people what it's about in a way that makes people think it's inspired when in fact it's too arcane for its own good. So no wonder some people feel a little conned.

The key to all best forms of art is simplicity. However, it seems practically impossible to combine simplicity with radicalism.

So.. Art is in a bit of a quandary really. It has had a great run in pushing boundaries over the last 150 years where people weren't beholden to the approval of royalty/ bourgeoisie, but certainly the high profile art would seem to indicate that the well has dried up a little on that front, and no wonder people wonder where it can possibly go now.

My conclusion on this is that the much-hyped Turner prize art isn't the be all and end all of art. There is still so much fantastic art around, but it's just not part of the mainstream anymore. It's the same with music, film, photography even. I go to a lot of exhibitions. Yes there is the odd duff one, but it is not quite the creative or indeed artistic desert it is made out to be. Personally I'd like to see more of artistic virtuosity, where it does look difficult and not a bag of rubbish! I'd like to see a mixture of both, as they should be able to co-exist.. The key caveats are that spark of creativity, and ability to connect, to inspire.

Personally, I couldn't live without the arts. I grew up with it everywhere (art teacher as a parent) studied (and loved) history of art at uni, and can safely say it's in my blood. I certainly don't feel pretentious about saying that as it really does have a profound impact on me. however, as has been said, it is a personal thing, and personally I look for art that impacts me emotionally, regardless of the shape or form that it takes. And no-one should tolerate being told what they feel about a piece of work either, as has already rightly been pointed out on this thread by a number of people.

Dare I say it, I was supporting Borg :D I hated Mac at first, then he just grew on me. My mum likes Borg, but all mums did cos he was polite and good looking.

Hey Petalp :)

Your post is really good, very well reasoned indeed. :bow:

Your discussion on Andy Warhol is spot on, I guess in many ways he did start the rock 'n' roll commercial art scene. I suppose people went mad in his day when he pained Campbell's soup tins and said 'is that art'? Music is art, adn when Beethoven came along he was criticised. The punk of his day. Rock n roll was criticised by the establishment, as was punk then acid house. I guess the question is nto such much whether we call something art, but mayeb more about the purity adn honesty of it's intentions and concepts.

yeah, my mum went for borg too, i think if they were playing now it would be hard to choose, but i think i'ld go for mac, i think he was such a creative player tons of talent.

The match that got me into tennis was the 2000 semi final between Serena and Venus at Wimbledon. I don't know why as it wasn't particularly brilliant. But I really enjoyed it and I guess they both inspired me :)

But I musn't hijack the thread. Great post Petalp btw :ok:

Im not much of an art connoiseur myself. Well apart from film and music, which are both different kinds of art forms :)