Talk:Conceptual art/Archive 1

Conceptual "Art" or "art"
I authored the paragraph under the Lewitt quote and added several artists to the list (before I had an account here). A dull administrative question: do people prefer "Conceptual Art" or "Conceptual art"? I don't mind either way but I think we should remain consistent.


 * I vote for conceptual art, all lower case. Chopchopwhitey 08:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about a movement, the former. If you're talking about art that is conceptual, the latter.  This article talks about the movement.  Whether or not that ought to be rectified is another issue, though.  Junjk 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IF U'R talking about art i don't think there should be a different perspective towords da difference between them.conceptional art is an art movement which is mostly defined as visual art;4 example a sculptur,which is conceptual art as i know it,but there is no real defenision of art u can go as ferther as possiable 4 as far as art is concerend.[user:bridget/mkhize]] 12:40,9 november 2005(lhs)

Piero Manzoni, artist's shit
This is referred to as chrome cylinders in 1959, but doesn't appear on google. What does is tins in 1961. This can be changed unless anyone has info to the contrary. Also is the date of the bodies of air accurate? Artist's Shit (tins 1961) in the Tate

Tyrenius 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only ever encountered references to Manzoni's Artist's Shit in its tinned form. Is it possible you are confusing this with another of Manzoni's multiples, his Line series, for which he utilised both metal and cardboard containers?


 * On another note, the absence of Kosuth's One and three Chairs (1965), or any of his works, fot that matter, from the list of examples seems quite a strange and substantial omission. In fact, there are many artists that are not represented there that probably should be, e.g., Art & Language. Is this list meant to be a timeline of key works, or just an arbitrary selection laid out chronologically?


 * Kramer J 02:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only aware of the tinned variety myself, so I presume the current entry in the article is wrong:
 * 1959: Piero Manzoni exhibited chrome cylinders of his own faeces. He puts the cylinders on sale for their own weight in gold. He also sells his own breath (enclosed in balloons) as 'Bodies of Air'.

However, I didn't know if this was an earlier manifestation of it. If no one says anything to the contrary it should be changed to the Tate data on it. "Art and Language" are mentioned in the body of the article, but I agree it would be a good idea to put them in the list also. At the moment it's an arbitrary selection (by the look of it), but it would be good if you could expand it.

Tyrenius 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jen Silver and "Ocean"
''2005: Jen Silver gains international recognition among conceptual art enthusiasts for her piece "Ocean". The work, which was a plain piece of paper on which were printed the words "This is a painting of the ocean." was unveiled a week after the Phuket tsunami and explored how context alters the viewers' perception.''

I have removed the above from the article, as 1) there is no article on Jen Silver in Wiki 2) the only google result for "Jen Silver" + "Ocean" is this mention of it. If there is substantiation of this entry, then it can go back. My apologies if I've missed something, but I am surprised that something which "gains international recognition" does not show in search results, and it seems that this claim may not be valid.

Tyrenius 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the Google search, but I did attend the New York Exhibit where Jen Silver's Ocean piece first was shown. I can say that several significant critics, and many "regular folk" seemed to be impressed. I think that this begs the question as to what the qualifications to be mentioned in the Conceptual Art article should be. Should we base the definition of "notable conceptual artist" on the number of awards won? Funding by Saatchi? Number of Google hits? As an art purist I'd rather see the definition based on the quality of the artist's work. I decided to research Jen Silver's website, www.ThisIsArt.Org and found that she has exhibited internationally and has been working and selling for some years. I vote that this link is reinstated. Or if not this exact link, then at least some presence on the page, either in the History or Notable Artist sections. (I noticed too that Jen Silver and several others were deleted from the History section. In fact, only Tracey Emin,who doesn't even consider herself a conceptual artist, and Damien Hirst remain.  I don't think either of these are the "latest wave" of conceptual artists, and I think that this page should reflect some of the many newer artists of note in addition to the "classics".)


 * Wiki has some policies and guidelines, for better or worse, which you might like to have a look at. No original research rules out your own experience of the subject. The others that are relevant are WP:BIO and particularly Verifiability. This tells you what is needed&mdash; which is verifiable reputable sources. These could be articles in newspapers/magazines, established gallery websites etc. I can't find these for Jen Silver. The comments and quotes on her site seem to be from individuals, not journals. The shows are a 2006 schedule. Saatchi Gallery is claimed, but this is an open access page that anyone can post on. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco is claimed, but a google search of the site brings up no results. Even on her Saatchi page she describes herself as an "emerging artist", not as an established one, and gives no shows or reviews. As things stand it is quite unacceptable for her to be included.


 * Re. Emin and Hirst: it doesn't say they are the "latest wave". It says they are "following". Emin is usually considered a conceptual artist and that is the significant fact, not necessarily what she considers herself to be.


 * If newer artists are of note and this can be verified from acceptable sources, then they can be included. I hope this clarifies things. If they are of note, then they should probably have their own article as well.


 * Tyrenius 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

art, smart, it's all quickie-mart to me
As an older and mid-career artist, though I actually support myself with another job, I have stepped right back from theoretic debate. In a naive though possibly relevant sense, the public dislike conceptual art or at least cannot find longevity in it because the name implies that the viewer has to make some effort of mind - in other words, to actually think or form/re-form the concept. Most punters have busy lives and don't want to have to think. So they shy away from conceptual art. Often the piece is also referential to (sometimes ironically) or actually part of an intellectual paradigm foreign to the majority of viewers. On another level, the concept being presented is often ephemeral or a comment on some contemporary issue: ergo once more: low relevance later on. However, conceptual art is a valuable - maybe indispensable - part of modern life. It acts as the court jester might once have: as a heightener of current emotion, the conscience of the king, a lens for the mind, a fey will'o'the'wisp touching lightly on refractions of the quotidian (damn' it I should translate that to French!). So though I regard most conceptual art as transitory, I applaud and encourage its practitioners. Which of us would truly want a world without them? Lgh 00:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above: as soon as 'art' casts itself off from limits and becomes a product of the mind/idea (viz. Schopenhauer and Goethe) it by definition becomes infinite and 'pointless'. The purpose or value is arbitrary and ascribed to the work by the individual viewer - or not. As a previously-starving artist, I can say, unfortunately, that if very little resource were made available to conceptual artists it would soon stop; Joe Bloggs says to Putney town council: 'I'd like to put three tonnes of bullshit on your council forecourt as a protest against modern sterility' and they say 'OK, great concept - we'll give you 10000 pounds to put it all together' well, Joe is delighted and goes ahead and makes a big stink. If, on the other hand they say 'grand conceptual idea -we'll give you a fiver' chances are Joe would not go ahead. The question is not the colour of the emperor's new clothes but how much people are willing to pay for them. As long as the public purse or and other purse is wide open then artists (like any other material phenomenon, any entropic entity) will exploit the resource. In the end we gotta' eat. As Churchill said: 'from great complexities great simplicities emerge.' Lgh 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we focus this talk page on material for the article please, and not general discussion of the topic. See WP:TPG. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity
The quote of Sol LeWitt's words includes the sentence, "In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work." By not distinguishing between idea and concept, he obscurely suggests that these words are synonyms and can be freely substituted for each other. This disregard for the clear and distinct use of words is a symptom of a person who has no mental acuity.152.163.100.12 17:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Sol Lewitt clarified this in his 1969 piece, Sentences on Conceptual Art: "The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept." Mcameronboyd 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarified? I wouldn't call those clear sentences. LeWitt totally disregarded the essential difference between idea and concept which is that an idea is an image and a concept is a thought. An idea is an imagined perception. A concept is that which is common to several perceptions.Lestrade 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

There is a body of research dealing with Conceptual art's linguistic and philosophical errors, some of it written by the artists themselves, but nobody with any grasp of the matter would claim Lewitt has "no mental acuity". That sort of ad hominem remark suggests to me that this article is not an appropriate venue for the views of Lestrade, and that he should perhaps think about developing his ideas over at the anti-conceptual art article, if it exists. Is it not the case that the best articles are written by those with some familiarity with the field in question, and that this familiarity usually derives from a sympathetic approach, or at least an initial openness, to the topic? Kramer J 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is not a suitable venue for personal opinions. Full stop. Please study WP:TPG. Tyrenius 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)