sucks.html

From: Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com>

Date: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:42 AM

Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: conceptual art sucks

CONCEPTUAL ART SUCKS

I figured it was about time I write an article explaining why
conceptual art sucks, since every time I encounter conceptual art, I
start to twitch. Just to define what I'm talking about when I say
"conceptual art," here's an example: In 1936, this guy named Walker
Evans took some really nice black and white pictures of
depression-era sharecroppers in rural Alabama. So far that's not
conceptual art, it's just good photography. Then in 1979, a
conceptual artist named Sherrie Levine decided she would take
photographs of Evans' original 1936 photographs and display her
photographs in a gallery. The gallery was more than happy to oblige,
since modern curators dig this kind of crap, for reasons I'll explain
later.

Pretty dumb, eh? But the fun is just starting. In 2001, another
conceptual artist named Michael Mandiberg scanned Evans' original
1936 images. Then he scanned Levine's 1979 photographs of Evans'
1936 photographs. He then set up two different web sites, each
featuring a different set of scans, with downloadable certificates of
authenticity, evidently to add further conceptual "weight" to his
"piece." The two web sites look identical. There is no recognizable
difference between any of the photographs. Even the site design is
identical. And of course that's all part of the concept.

Now how much would you pay? But wait, there's more! In 2001,
another conceptual artist named Kendall Bruns downloaded all the
images from the Michael Mandiberg web site and set up his own mirror
site featuring his own copies of Mandiberg's scanned images of
Levine's photographs of Evans' photographs of Alabama sharecroppers.
Or was it merely Bruns' copies of Mandiberg's scanned images of
Evans' photographs of Alabama sharecroppers, thus leaving Levine's
iteration out of the remix altogether? Things get a little sketchy
at this point. But one thing is certain. There are now 3 web sites
at 3 different URL's that look identical. There are 3 conceptual
artists (one in 1979 and two in 2001) feeling very clever and smug.
There are several museums, graduate arts programs, and online
galleries buying into this crap. And there's only one actual
"artist" anywhere to be found, way back in 1936.

First I'll explain why this type of conceptual art is poor (if may be
allowed a value judgment). Then I'll hazard a guess as to why this
kind of conceptual art is as widely accepted as it is.

1. WHY CONCEPTUAL ART SUCKS

Without the artist statements that accompany and explain the point of
these three web sites, the sites themselves would seem like three
identical online versions of a 1936 photo documentary by Walker
Evans. So the "art" of this art lies primarily (dare I say, solely)
in the idea that the artist statements convey. This is why the stuff
is called conceptual art. Conceptual artists believe that by making
the idea the art, they have escaped the bonds of the art object, they
have bypassed the skill necessary to make the art object, and they
have superseded all the other "base machinations" that have
historically been associated with art.

"Conceptual art is 'pure' art!" the conceptual artist blithely
boasts. "We have escaped the confines of media-assisted
communication. We are now trafficking in the realm of pure thought,
mind to mind." Digital conceptual artists are the worst, because
then further muck up their theory with pedantic odes to the binary
muse, the ethereal cloud of information, the uber-cyber-mind, and all
that other extropian garbledy-goop.

The sad and very pertinent fact is this: conceptual artists haven't
escaped the confines of media. They've simply chosen a very crude
and rudimentary form of media -- the artist statement -- and they've
chosen to channel all of their "pure" ideas through that thin and
puny medium. Without the artist statement, the concept simply ain't
shared. The conceptual artist would resent this observation,
countering that the artist statement is merely incidental, and not
part of the art itself. The conceptual artist would have us believe
that any resident physical objects are merely incidental (in this
example, Evans' original 1936 photographs); that the artist statement
is incidental; and all that's left is the pure concept itself. Very
convenient, but a simple removal of the artist statement proves that
it is the very vehicle through which the "pure" concept is
transferred. Conceptual artists may say their artist statements are
incidental, but conceptual artists are wrong.

This is why conceptual art is poor art. With abstract oil painting,
the artist is communicating in the media of color, shape, texture,
canvas, and paints. With abstract multimedia art, the artist is
communicating in the media of sound, light, spoken words, patters,
rhythms, series, written words, etc. Note that with these forms of
historically defined "real" art, the artist is still conceptual. He
is still sharing a concept. The "real" artist owns the fact that we
can't read his mind. He further recognizes the fact that written
words alone can't "say" enough. So he learns and masters speaking to
us via other more visceral, emotional channels besides mere prose.
The real artist embraces the fact that a pure idea cannot be
transferred from one person to another without first being encoded
into some form of media. Accepting that fact, he masters the media
of his choice, and he send his "concept" to us on waves that connect
with our whole being, not just our analytical minds. Bravo.

Whereas the conceptual artist can only strike our minds. His chosen
medium (although he won't admit it) is prose, and a very pedantic,
mechanical, and unpoetic form of prose at that. (Just re-read the
first three paragraphs of this essay and you'll experience my point.)
Wanting to escape the confines of media and traffic in the realm of
pure idea, the conceptual artist inadvertently winds up trafficking
in one of the thinnest, unresonant, distracting forms of media yet
contrived -- the artist statement.

To make an analogy, the "real" artist is a 7-foot tall, dreadlocked
drum and bass DJ broadcasting via radio, satellite, broadband, and
cable. The "conceptual" artist is a little 12-year old kid mumbling
into a paper cup, all the while imagining that he is practicing some
sort of radical new form of telepathic communication. That's why I
say that conceptual art, in its "pure" unadulterated form, is poor
art.

2. WHY CONCEPTUAL ART IS SO POPULAR

Here I must digress into a bit of psychological guesswork, but I
think I'm right. Conceptual art is popular for three main reasons:
a) Conceptual art increases the role of curators and art critics, so
they choose to promote it and write about it because everybody wants
to be more important than they really are.
b) Post-modern relativism is afraid to call anything bad, so
conceptual art sneaks in the back door and the relativist art critics
are bootless to kick it out.
c) Conceptual artists are lazy, untalented, or both. They don't want
to invest the time to learn the skills to make good art. Or maybe
they tried and they just couldn't do it. So they turned to thinking
of ideas and writing artist statements.

a) Before, with real art, curators and art critics were mere servants
of the art. The art object was center stage, the artist was only
slightly left of center (more or less, depending on your particular
critical emphasis), and the curators and critics were somewhere in
the wings. Now, with conceptual art, it's all about the event and
the context. The art object (with all of its multi-sensory ability
to convey emotions/ideas/concepts/truths) is now banished to the
wings, and the artist is either left of center, or more often, he has
assumed the treble role of artist/curator/critic, and is sharing
center stage with a sycophantic entourage of curators,
contextualizers, event hosts, essayists, and critical pundits.

What heady stuff this conceptual art is to a curator! "Art" becomes
a sort of staged political event to prove some sort of conceptual
point, usually in dialogue with the modern art community itself. And
since the curator is the figurehead of the modern art community, he
has a very central role to play in "the concept." Even if the
conceptual art seems to ridicule and shun the curator, in fact it
always embraces him by the very fact that it is conceptual. If this
were not the case, conceptual artists would just go don some scuba
gear, swim about in a public fountain noticed only by a few
disinterested passers-by, and return home with the satisfaction of a
conceptual job well done. No, the difference between a conceptual
artist and a lunatic is that the former is in dialogue with a
curator, and the latter is in dialogue with the voices that won't
leave him alone. Ironically, if any art ever needed a gallery,
conceptual art does. And the fame-hungry curator is more than happy
to oblige.

What heady stuff this conceptual art is to an art critic! After all,
the artist statement is now the central and sole medium. And aren't
the critical essay and the artist statement kissing cousins? Hot
dog! No more trying to figure out what the art means! Now the art
critic can play a part in defining what the art means. And who
better to join in all this conceptual, linguistic fun than the
champing-at-the-bit-to-be-witty-and-insightful post-modern art
critic?

In the 50's, post-structuralist literary criticism freed the then
subservient literary critic by empowering him to write about his own
agenda, regardless of what the text he was reviewing at the time was
actually saying. Thus the critic became the creator (albeit the
creator of a mind-numbingly convoluted type of intellectual prose).
Now the modern art critic can join in the "creative" fun as well with
conceptual art! No more subservience to the art object or to the
artist. Simply stick to expounding on conceptual art, make sure you
dismiss real art as passé, and now you too are the star! Meanwhile
the art patrons evacuate in droves. But never mind them. The art
critics are so punch drunk from finally getting to actively
participate somehow in all of this art stuff, heck, they just don't
care!

b) I won't belabor this point, but when relativism tied the hands of
anyone to say, "This is good. This is bad. The is pretty. This is
ugly," the conceptualists were free to run amok.

c) If the conceptual artist wants to be an artist so badly, why
doesn't he just learn how to make real art? My hunch is that
learning how to make real art is too hard for him. Learning to
communicate something valuable and worthy, whether visually or
poetically or aurally or whatever, takes a lifetime of devotion. And
even then, some people can do it and some people can't.

Like Salieri in _Amadeus_, the conceptual artist is given the ability
to appreciate greatness, but he is cursed with the inability to
create greatness himself. So he takes the short track to fame and
goes conceptual. Salieri was born too soon. Scheming, jealous,
petty, vain, able to manipulate public opinion -- Salieri could have
written his own ticket as a self-pimping conceptual artist, a
post-modern art critic, a pseudo-intellectual graduate professor in
cross-media studies, a cliquish gallery curator, or any number of
lesser titles in the wack-wack-wacky world of contemporary art. And
Mozart? He would have been just another populist Jon Bon Jovi.

Some would argue that conceptual art is really more like an irritant,
a conversation starter, a stunt to get people to think. That's cool.
So take it to the streets, protest, write essays, be political.
Meanwhile, give me back my tax money, stop teaching my children, and
use your galleries to send concepts down fatter and more emotive
media pipes than the thin mumbo jumbo prose of some hackneyed artist
statement written by some wannabe who never made any real art.

(If I may be allowed a value judgment.)

peace,
curt

+ "Man, Woman, Want to Game."
-> Rhizome.org
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3