Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
Post Reply
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Hereandnow wrote: December 26th, 2017, 10:45 pm If it is art you are enjoying, then it is not a conceptual experience; if it is conceptual, then it is not art.
I posted last week: All art is conceptual to some extent, it doesn't seem so unusual that some artists would try to isolate this aspect, and still call it art. They are artists after all.

Do you stand by this statement?
fair to say
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Hereandnow »

3uGH7D4MLj

Did you read the Stanford article? Seems pretty well argued.

You never give examples of the artworks which you object to.

What about an art work which expresses no idea at all, and contains no physical object? Marina Abramovicz, "The Artist is Present," NYC Museum of Modern Art, March 14–May 31, 2010. She sat across a table from people. This work has been made into a feature length film.

What about artworks which the artist describes, which are then produced by students or tradespeople? A whole floor of Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art is devoted to Sol LeWitt's Work.
It's a conceptual argument, and for the most part it does not target the merit of conceptual artworks. It's an argument that says, because conceptual art is an oxymoron, we need ask ourselves, when we are observing a work of art and our minds are thinking, interpreting, understanding ideas, and we are not appreciating form and the visible features, have we not stepped out of the world of artistic appreciation into one of thought and concepts? If this is ok, then what does this say about art and standards of aesthetics? Clearly, one has to admit, that when I stand before Duchamp's urinal or Joseph Kosuth's chair, and expert is explaining the art's explanation, there is a question that presses forward: Am I experiencing art?

As to Stanford's definition, I am not so much interested. What the artworld declares as art presupposes what is at issue.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

"because conceptual art is an oxymoron," this is the starting point of your argument?

If an artwork delivers a concept, your art experience shuts down somehow? Art appreciation doesn't involve thought and concepts? Isn't appreciating form and visible features conceptual, thoughtful, cognitive? When you think of Van Gogh's painting of St Paul's Asylum, and you imagine him living there, and being out on the lawn laying on the paint, you've stopped appreciating art? When you notice the tortured trees, aren't these concepts?

It's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not the art world.
fair to say
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Hereandnow »

3uGH7D4MLj

Now you're talking. But take the time to read more closely what I said. You haven't:

"Conceptual art, I say, does not designate art that requires thought, or requires some reference to interpretative theory or structure of ideas. It (rather)designates art that is very short on visual presence, and long on conceptual content, and the more the latter dominates the less art it is"

It's not about rejecting all that we call art. It is about whether conceptual art, is by definition, really art at all. The genre is given the name because these artworks primarily are supposed to present ideas. You know, that's the point. And they can be stunning presentations. But if you go to the exhibition hall and stand before it, what you really enjoy is not a concept, in most or all you mentioned, but the evocative nature of the physical medium. If it were truly conceptual art, it would be a thesis.

Examples are too numerous to mention. A giant shoe, a sneaker in fact, was there on exhibit in Kwangju, South Korea. It was big, imposing and did have a striking, errr, excess in its presence. Awesome to look at, walk around. This is called conceptual art, but I fail to see why. The encounter was of the body, the imposing size loomed large in one's perceptual gaze, and yes, there was an question in the back of my mind, why a shoe? And the answer was simple: the irony of it. Shoes are not that big, nor are they part of the grandeur suggested by the exhibition's size. It was the irony, but beyond that,almost nothing conceptual going on here.

It's a challenge to the concept of conceptual art. If you think I'm wrong, then fine. More than fine. But consider what I say, not your convenient for rebuttal construal of what I say. In the end you might be more right than I am.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Have a happy New Year HAN.
fair to say
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Hereandnow »

I yield. Thank you for that. Happy New Year 3uGH7D4MLj.
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Spraticus »

the whole thing is a category error. Saying that Marina Abramovich just being in the building is a work of art is the same as saying that bread is a form of sausage or a flower is a pair of scissors.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Hereandnow »

Spraticus:
the whole thing is a category error. Saying that Marina Abramovich just being in the building is a work of art is the same as saying that bread is a form of sausage or a flower is a pair of scissors.
I guess I would disagree with this. I think Marina Abramovich becomes art the moment you perceive her as such. The standard for determining what art is entirely depends on how it is taken, and if it is taken AS art, it is. Not unlike saying, in the building, my doesn't Marina look lovely. You could also have said, my what grace, or, what nerve she has coming here, and so on. Each occasion, brings a new interpretative standard.

As to an error in category, I would say if you're dealing with fitting flowers into the category of sausage, it does not work our well usually. You could imagine fashioning a flower into the shape of scissors, then drying them, petrifying them...but forget it. Can't meaningfully be done. But Marina Abramovich fits nicely into the category of art, as do, frankly, all things: anything can be taken as art.

Sausage can be taken as art, but not everything can be taken as sausage.

Anyway, categories are fluid things, and one often can be taken as something beyond the usual. A loaf of bread can easily be taken as a door stop or a plaything for a dog. Categorical errors occur only when the one excludes the other for the particular occasion at hand, or simply altogether.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Spraticus wrote: December 30th, 2017, 12:13 pm the whole thing is a category error. Saying that Marina Abramovich just being in the building is a work of art is the same as saying that bread is a form of sausage or a flower is a pair of scissors.
Well, it's not as simple as that. There was a theatrical set-up, a space cleared with furniture in the middle. Marina would come in the morning and sit, sometimes in red, sometimes in black or white, and she would silently interact with those who would take the other chair.

It's performance art, related to theater. The museum also had large rooms filled with photographs of her life's work, which I thought completely validated the tenuousness of the central piece. Your reaction I think is a natural one, and the piece is powered by that incongruity to some extent.
fair to say
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Spraticus »

"It's performance art, related to theater." That is the problem. I don't object to it existing, I just object to it being called what it isn't.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Burning ghost »

I think it is an oxymoron. But really, it is just a name of something people like to do (it just happens to have a rather obscure title.)

What is it? I guess it is something more like "visual philosophical abstraction." It is certainly a creative medium, but not everything that is creative can be called an "art". For example we don't call mathematics an art form, yet we may well say a good mathematician possesses something akin to "creative artistry", but not meaning that they create art, only apply their creative ability toward the production of abstract concepts.

To take the above approximation of how we can use the terms "creative" and "art" to describe what a mathematician does, we can then look upon the field of "conceptual art" as being about possessing and expressing abstract ideas through some physical medium and displaying it for people to address.

I watched a documentary a few weeks back about artists in London. One women travelled abroad and stole part of someone else's conceptual art and displayed it as "art". It was an interesting take on "art", and she was kind of asking the question through this "work" as to what makes "art" art?

For me it is nothing more than expressing a concept about a concept and putting aesthetics completely aside. For me "art" has to be aesthetic, and not accidentally of "aesthetic" value, like a flower or sunset.
AKA badgerjelly
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Spraticus »

Burning ghost wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:32 am I think it is an oxymoron. But really, it is just a name of something people like to do (it just happens to have a rather obscure title.)

What is it? I guess it is something more like "visual philosophical abstraction." It is certainly a creative medium, but not everything that is creative can be called an "art". For example we don't call mathematics an art form, yet we may well say a good mathematician possesses something akin to "creative artistry", but not meaning that they create art, only apply their creative ability toward the production of abstract concepts.

To take the above approximation of how we can use the terms "creative" and "art" to describe what a mathematician does, we can then look upon the field of "conceptual art" as being about possessing and expressing abstract ideas through some physical medium and displaying it for people to address.

I watched a documentary a few weeks back about artists in London. One women travelled abroad and stole part of someone else's conceptual art and displayed it as "art". It was an interesting take on "art", and she was kind of asking the question through this "work" as to what makes "art" art?

For me it is nothing more than expressing a concept about a concept and putting aesthetics completely aside. For me "art" has to be aesthetic, and not accidentally of "aesthetic" value, like a flower or sunset.
I agree. I think part of the problem is how we use the word art. Unqualified, it tends to refer to the visual arts, drawing, painting sculpture etc., but with qualifiers it can be musical arts, decorative arts, theatrical arts or whatever. Each of these has its own conceptual and performance space although, of course, they can be combined in multiple ways. The problem with conceptual art is that it has invaded and to some extent taken over the space of visual art instead of making its own space. I strongly suspect that if it had tried to become its own thing in its own space it would have died long ago. It was able to get into visual art space because initially it was produced by visual artists and involved artifacts. In its early days, 1950s and 60s, the closely related performance art seemed to happen largely in gallery spaces rather than theatres for some reason, and there it has stayed.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consider the boundary between visual and "conceptual" art. Visual art will necessarily have variable conceptual content and aesthetic appeal.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Hereandnow »

Burning Ghost:
but not everything that is creative can be called an "art".
But why not?
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Conceptual art: an oxymoron?

Post by Spraticus »

Greta wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 7:09 am Consider the boundary between visual and "conceptual" art. Visual art will necessarily have variable conceptual content and aesthetic appeal.
I suspect that everyone here would agree that all art has some sort of conceptual content. The conceptual movement has chosen to accentuate that aspect, to the point that the artifact can be done away with in some cases. The aesthetic element however, could go into negative territory so "appeal" might be the wrong word. In other cases, such as switching a light off and on, the aesthetic content is elusive to a point close to invisibility. (As is the contribution of the "artist".)
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021