Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2008, 08:00 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
conceptal art

who loves it? I do. how does concept guide what you do? is it necessary or elementary to cling to the art object ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-29-2008, 08:19 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: conceptal art

Not unlike the scribblers.

Well, if you want to pay attention to trends and acadamies they'll tell you about how its al about the "planning" and not at all about the execution. But, of course these are the least trustworthy of sources for information about aesthetics (tied tightly to regiments and clique-ism). Sol Lewitt, as the proprietor should be considered the authority, but he was only a hair above meager philosopher...didn't know much about interacting with matter.

My view...its obvious. The planning and predicating of an idea can never BE the Art. In much the same way that the object is not the Art. theres the part that must be handled in real time, the execution...the NOW of it is always the subject and the substance.

Avante-gardists, though entertaining and actually quite necessary, are seasoned in the undertaking of charades... grandoisities that take so many nonsensical shapes and forms that they could easily be mistaken for real Art. Fact is, most of it involves a group mentalia that is likely to squash any genius that might have potential within its members.

Of course, there have been space aliens who unfairly dominated such movements and produced highly significant works...but mostly you get perfessers, rambling on, handless, about scattered and over-verbalized simplicities.

There are those who will feel they need to INCLUDE it, by its variation, pretend they get it...but theres not much to get - theatre is much better (third tier Art).

In all, enjoy it but don't DO it. You'll be disappointed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-29-2008, 10:14 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: conceptal art

I'm still waiting for the conceptual artists to come up with some good concepts.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-30-2008, 03:12 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: conceptal art

evald- what makes a physical activity more interesting/ important than a mental one? if interaction with materials is important, why not interaction with/ manipulation of ideas?

glenn- what would be a good concept?

conceptual (whatever you feel comfortable calling it) has got me going in a way I haven't before.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-30-2008, 03:28 PM
fused fused is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennT View Post
I'm still waiting for the conceptual artists to come up with some good concepts.
It's not like there's a shortage of art objects out there that has come up a little short of good. There has often been expressed a generalization that "conceptual art is easy"... when it is obvious from the successful works that exist out there that it isn't. It might be said that all art is conceptual... since most people continually think things through -> before -> during -> after they make/persuit a creative idea <- oops... there it is again.

The marriage of concept, object and what to do with it is not always a simple solution.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	RM, Untitled, In Memory of Mark Rothko.jpg
Views:	217
Size:	14.0 KB
ID:	9186  
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-30-2008, 03:55 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by fused View Post
"conceptual art is easy"... when it is obvious from the successful works that exist out there that it isn't.
art doesn't have to be hard to be good
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-30-2008, 07:09 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooljamesx1 View Post
glenn- what would be a good concept?
For me, love, wisdom, and power in balanced action would be a good concept.
Gratitude is another. How about optimism. That would be new, to create a work of art that expresses optimism.

Upon further reflection it may not be the lack of good concepts that I miss in current conceptual art as much as an attitude towards life that I can relate to.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-30-2008, 08:10 PM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooljamesx1 View Post
who loves it? I do. how does concept guide what you do? is it necessary or elementary to cling to the art object ?
ALL art is conceptual. There is plenty of room for every kind of art, object-based or otherwise. Why bother to limit one's self to strict hierarchies ranking the value of one art over another.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-30-2008, 08:18 PM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by evaldart View Post
Not unlike the scribblers.
Evaldart old man, you have written volumes on this forum. Are you sure you are not one of them "scribblers" yerself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by evaldart View Post
My view...its obvious. The planning and predicating of an idea can never BE the Art. In much the same way that the object is not the Art. theres the part that must be handled in real time, the execution...the NOW of it is always the subject and the substance.
Conceptualizing a piece is also done in "real time". An idea can be executed. What you describe as your preferred take on making art sounds very much like objectless conceptual art to me. Especially if you see the final object as being less relevant than the act of making.

A scribbler AND a conceptual artist....a red letter day?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-30-2008, 09:46 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: conceptal art

Well Chese, we sculptors have spared the scribblers plenty of embarrassment by keeping our conversations away from the possibilities of publication. They are only half-creatives, so fearful and envious of us..YOU...by our manual abilities, that are so significantly attached to matter and Reality. and NO, conceptualization does NOT happen in real time... because Time is just a primitive solution that the meager mind has developed to handle the relating to each other of events. Conceptualization is a state, a constant one, one that the elevated conscience lives-in. When Lewitt or Friedman have a rare conceptual epiphany they are so damned excited that they try to turn it into Art. Its only a shudder for them. A real artist has to fight-off the concepts, select from thousands, weed out the crap...but some attemptors, with enough consciousness to recognize the crap, but not enough vitality to attack, will involve themselves in the theatre and rhetoric that is conseptual Art. If you dont have a proper bullshit-detector in your head...bring a little mirror with you to the art show; your own expression will give you the answer everytime. Evaldart knows what he looks like in any given situation...it makes it tough to face them-all sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-30-2008, 11:56 PM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: conceptal art

Cling eh? Interesting choice of words.. Concept, object.. Is not the art from any method just another reward? A Scooby Snack for the waggy tails..?

Scooby Snacks are great, but they pale in comparison to rolling over, catching frisbees and playing dead.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:29 AM
Aaron Schroeder's Avatar
Aaron Schroeder Aaron Schroeder is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shelby, Ohio
Posts: 856
Re: conceptal art

People make stuff because they want it and can't buy, steal or find it. People want stuff so that they can possess it and return to it whenever they want. When people lose something that they want, they feel a sense of loss, they feel sad. Artist deal with all this by empowering themselves to create, recreate, maintain and repair possessions and coordinated points of perception so they gain a sense of control over their obsessions.

Ideas emerge in an artists mind and for one reason or another a few are selected for further interaction. An externalization is in order to anchor the relationship so that it doesn't get away. Sometimes the subject of desire varies in substance, intensity and graspability. To the outside observer an artists efforts to create a loop may not make any sense but for the artist the loop is what it's all about. Getting back to those feeling and thoughts that we must have. Few folks are happy sipping from someone elses cup of tea so it's no wonder that people don't get what others are about. Most feel obligated to to finish off the whole cup never realizing that they can get a world of experience from just a sip. It's great when one finds what one likes but to much of a good thing leads to stagnation, trying new flavors, new feelings, new thoughts keeps life fresh. One doesn't have to like conceptual art to benefit from it, just knowing it's is available and that you can get back to it if you want is a value. Keeping a vast variety of art on the menu ensures that you have the means to provide for the wants of every guest. Or Not.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:45 AM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: conceptal art

You got it A, the fearers on this site should realize that we LOVE all Art, but we will not tolerate standards and shams. We'll address that crap ever proficiently.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-31-2008, 02:21 AM
Aaron Schroeder's Avatar
Aaron Schroeder Aaron Schroeder is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shelby, Ohio
Posts: 856
Re: conceptal art

The standard bearers and the shams will be crushed with due diligence, the weeping of their women will be music to our ears.

Who hasn't hated a work of art only to end up loving it. And vice versa. Back and forth and forth and back. Such is looking at other peoples art ( OPA ). After a while the only art that truelly attracts is ones own. As inclusive as I like to think I am, I make an all out effort to exclude as much as possible on a daily basis. I'm digging my own private tunnel vision with little regard for followers. I want what I want. Asking another artist to deviate from their own path....to consider me or anybody.....is like blasphomy. They (I) may suck but in a special, unique and individual way, filling out the full spectrum in the human experience. It takes all kinds.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2008, 09:15 AM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: conceptal art

Great point Aaron, some of my favorite art in the world is art that I hate.
Getting back to conceptual art, the true inventors were KGB spies in a highly secret windfall profit organization called Whammo.. They nearly did us in during the 60's and 70's.. And then the Rubix cube,.. My God, the horror..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-31-2008, 10:21 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: conceptal art

Hi, In conceptual art the "idea" takes precedents over the physical form that is created to express that concept/idea. The aesthetics of form are of no concern to the conceptual artist.
I think that causes a problem for us object makers out there, which I think includes most of us on this site.
Eval has suggested that the object is not the art, I beg to differ with that.
The form that the object takes as it relates to what we're trying (however nebulous) to express IS the art. The aesthetics of the object, does it have feeling, does it work in 3 dimensional space, does it avoid mere decoration, does it express what we're trying to express IS what us object makers ask ourselves.
Conceptual artists only ask one question, does it express my idea?
Therein lies the problem, for me at least. These concepts seem to me to be so esoteric as to deny meaning without written verbiage accompanying them. Whereas, I can look at an object based work and immediately know if it works or not.
I think that most conceptual works fail because they must rely on the written word for an explanation or are so esoteric that one can't figure out with some certainty what the hell the piece is about.
To me, Sol LeWitt is an interior decorator and nothing more. His concepts, of giving loosely written instructions for others to execute (anyone can be an artist, well we all know that!) and the idea that decoration can be high art are banal at best.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-31-2008, 11:07 AM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
Hi, In conceptual art the "idea" takes precedents over the physical form that is created to express that concept/idea. The aesthetics of form are of no concern to the conceptual artist.
I couldn't disagree more. In fact, often the "concept" behind the conceptual work is all about aesthetics and other formal expectations of art - especially addressing how the viewer can be an equal participant in creating a work of art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
To me, Sol LeWitt is an interior decorator and nothing more. His concepts, of giving loosely written instructions for others to execute (anyone can be an artist, well we all know that!) and the idea that decoration can be high art are banal at best.
Sol was very concerned with interiors (and architecture in general) - so in some respects you are correct. However, the relationship between high art and the decorative was (and continues to be) very relevant subject matter. Many have followed Sol's lead - perhaps making his instruction-based art seem passe when, in fact, it remains an exciting critique of the "institution". I think Sol would have actually fit in quite well around here.

I have done a number of instruction-based sculptures myself. I see no difference whatsoever between my concept heavy works and my more formal and object-based work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
Therein lies the problem, for me at least. These concepts seem to me to be so esoteric as to deny meaning without written verbiage accompanying them. Whereas, I can look at an object based work and immediately know if it works or not.
Respectfully, I don't get this at all. If a conceptual piece seems like it is going to be too much work for you - then simply look away or move along to something you like. Frankly, it is no different than looking at any traditional or object-based works. Like something or dislike it - but don't dismiss an entire genre of art just because you are challenged to experience it in ways that you might not be comfortable with or that pushes you into challenging arenas. You might be taking for granted that many of the "not we" find looking at traditional art a challenge too.

When you claim to be able to "look at an object based work and immediately know if it works or not" of course you mean it "works" formally. Can you make the same snap determination with an object-based work's conceptual basis?


It surprises me that such an enlightened community feels the need to limit the definition of art so absolutely!? Shame.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-31-2008, 12:17 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
It surprises me that such an enlightened community feels the need to limit the definition of art so absolutely!? Shame.
Surprised??? Limit the definition of art!!! There are more debates on this forum about the limits and rules governing art than anything else. I shake my head in dismay and go on sabbatical on a regular basis. Enlightened??? Hardly. Very few are literate when it comes to contemporary work, let alone accepting, or even tolerant. Reminds me, yet again, of the Thomas Edison quote, to paraphrase: "5% of the people think, 15% think they think, and the remainder would rather die than think."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-31-2008, 12:19 PM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: conceptal art

Hi, You are confusing the two. Object based work is about the object, conceptual based work is about the idea.
If you are doing object based work that relies on an idea or feeling and aesthetics, it's not considered conceptual art.
Conceptual work is more along the lines of Bruce Naumanns work or even Andres Serrano "Piss Christ", neither of which pay any attention to the visual aesthetics of the object.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:11 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
neither of which pay any attention to the visual aesthetics of the object.
so? .....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:15 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
I think that most conceptual works fail because they must rely on the written word for an explanation or are so esoteric that one can't figure out with some certainty what the hell the piece is about.
why is reliance on language a failure? also, there seems to be this idea floating around that conceptual art is supposed to make sense or say something...strange.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:39 PM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by jOe~ View Post
Enlightened??? Hardly. Very few are literate when it comes to contemporary work, let alone accepting, or even tolerant. Reminds me, yet again, of the Thomas Edison quote, to paraphrase: "5% of the people think, 15% think they think, and the remainder would rather die than think."
I know what you are saying but I am still pretty optimistic about this community. I think anyone who is daring enough to think art is even worth making probably falls within Edison’s 5% - even if I disagree with some of their opinions or gag at what they are making. Appreciating art at a base level IS a rare and enlightened stance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
Hi, You are confusing the two. Object based work is about the object, conceptual based work is about the idea. If you are doing object based work that relies on an idea or feeling and aesthetics, it's not considered conceptual art.
Conceptual work is more along the lines of Bruce Naumanns work or even Andres Serrano "Piss Christ", neither of which pay any attention to the visual aesthetics of the object.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Like most art the concept and the object have a proportional relationship. Some may have more of one than the other but it is a rare thing when they are completely separate. In fact, your own examples illustrate the point rather well. Nauman’s and Serrano’s works are loaded with formal considerations of aesthetics from basic compositional devices - to color usage - to exploring the tactile qualities of text – to the study of movement….the list goes on and on. The considerations of “feelings” and aesthetics in an object-based work does not exclude it from being conceptual art – which openly explores and embraces these same notions.

I guess that we could discuss object-lite works like those of Rirkrit Tiravanija, Paul McCarthy or Carolee Schneeman that straddle performance art and theater …but I assume we are talking primarily about sculpture here.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-31-2008, 03:15 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Appreciating art at a base level IS a rare and enlightened stance.
Hell ya. Bad art is a 100% better than no art. What I find very irritating, for some strange reason, are the exclusionary and self limiting "ideas" floating around here. Note the quotes around "ideas". These are more like rigid rules of conduct, like telling your kid what the curfew time is.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-31-2008, 03:23 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
neither of which pay any attention to the visual aesthetics of the object.
Even in its simplest forms, that anyone one could easily do, I still find a sense about conceptual art that says an artist is in control here and this person presents evidence of having done/made something , even if they don't know what they are doing, and I don't get it or like it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-31-2008, 05:34 PM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: conceptal art

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesepaws View Post
The two are not mutually exclusive. Like most art the concept and the object have a proportional relationship. Some may have more of one than the other but it is a rare thing when they are completely separate.
Well that's a good point Señor Cheese, I suppose then if one were to claim purity of any kind in a conceptual piece of art then it would in fact never leave the drawing board (so to speak).. It would remain locked up tight in the skull of whoever conceived it. The moment it was picked out of the bone yard or fell under the whirling bite of an angle grinder or the blazing zap of a welder or even dipped in paint then it would enter the realm of object and cease to be wholly conceptual.

I suppose with my prior exposure to it, or what claims to be it, I have always felt it to be little more than colored dots and such.. When you add the element of object to it then it begins to heal.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert