which chair is more of a chair: a photograph of a chair, a dictionary definition of a chair, or a chair in a museum that no one can sit on anymore, rendering the chair useless? i love art so much holy shit
This is actually an insightful reading of the piece. I wish more conceptual arts provide rooms for this kind of interpretation instead of acting cocky and elite.
So what if the chair is useless? It still is a chair, and much more of a chair than the 2 other versions. One is a literary description of what a chair is, the other one is a visual description, but the third one _is_ a chair. There are probably some chairs in my house that weren't sat on in months, but that doesn't make them any less chair-ey.
@@smorcrux426 a good question to ask then too is if a box you sit on is more of a chair than the photograph or the definition of one. is sitting on a chair what defines it as a chair or is it the design and structure of it? you bring up good points, i won't lie. discussing it in detail is why i love this and why i made the comment in the first place.
Hey John, you don't have to sell books anymore, because you yourself ARE a conceptual artist on your own! If I were you, I would rip off every single page of your books and hang them on walls, calling them conceptual art. After all, ideas matter, right?
Ways to use this video: 1) send it to relatives and friends who often question just what the hell you are doing with your life. 2) watch it when you question what the hell you are doing with your life. 3) luxuriate in the genius of conceptual art and situational aesthetics. 4) be an art machine.
"watch it when you question what the hell you are doing with your life." LOL. Yep. Truly tho I stopped this vid over and over again to take notes to luxuriate in concepts which I cherish in my own art-making process but which I had self-doubt about.
ppl hate on conceptual art but i found it really useful after going to art school and learning how to develop ideas for work. i’m not a conceptual artist but there are a lot of things from the movement you can translate over to works with imagery with what people would typically think of as art
After a few months in my parents' basement, I took an apartment near the state university, where I discovered both crystal methamphetamine and conceptual art. Either one of these things are dangerous, but in combination they have the potential to destroy entire civilizations.
I certainly don't like conceptual art in the slightest, but it's always good to learn the justifications and philosophies behind these sorts of things.
Giving people what they want in exchange for money is stealing, apparently. Just money moving from rich people to rich people. Worry more about how they get their money rather than how they spend it.
It seems like you are trapped between the main two questionable ways of approaching art: taste (liking or disliking), and justification. For me it's something else, beyond all that.
Its okay disliking art genre. Me myself dislike abstract expressionism especially pollock. But i like the history about it. My most favourite genre is outsider.
@Wenceslao Futanaki indeed there are so many fake outsider out there. I hate when they said that they are outsider. True outsider artists makes art not because money but because their own reason and its unknown to us. Take vivian maier, she takes photograph because she love doing it. Adolf wolfie does the same, and so does tichy. Tichy is a unique case as he was once study at the art institute but consider outsider. Also cuz he live in year of so many fake outsider (2000s). Main reason i hate pollock is because the work gets famous because of the advertisement and commercialism. He literally just pour paint into the canvas without any meaning in my eyes. I still don't know why i dislike abstract expressionism so much when i like any othet art genre. Thank you for your kind reply.
Isn't conceptual art and postmodernism kinda used to ridicule the classic 'high' art? Artwork that becomes famous or expensive also because of the history, the process or even because of the artist themselves. The point of some conceptual art, especially postmodern art, is that the actual artwork can only last for a moment in time or is purposely just garbage compare to the classic which can last for a very long time. Why? Because the message is the most important. The question, the answer, the emotion or the idea created from the audience themselves are the main goal of this genre. That may be why sometimes the process or even the reason why the artist did it is not important. Unlike the classic artworks that are straightforward where you, even with different culture or background, can still understand the idea behind it. Not this genre. Depending on what you have learned and experience, what message you see may be different from the person next to you. Ooof, I guess I did write a lot. But, yeah, that is just my opinion. Tho it's true that having these type of art put in the museum is kinda counterproductive but I think it is ok if they really did throw the artwork themselves away when its time to let go. And keep the documentation of the process so we know it exists.
Finally. PBS has shows about art. I wish this was on the ALL ARTS channel. They keep showing the same things from 4 years ago and The Art Vault is artists from 100 years ago.
In life there are some concepts that don't appeal to me and there are some concepts I love. Some ideas need context, some are self explanatory, some can never be understood. This is mirrored in the world of Concept Art. One of the best feelings in the world is that sublime realisation of suddenly "getting" a work of art, that wonderful peak when you actually hear what the piece is trying to tell. Of all the Art styles, Concept Art (to me) has the most success and also the most failures. There are some very bad Concept Artists out there that know no subtlety and resort to "shock", " confrontation" and the old standby " pushing boundaries". This is stupid and lazy, yes that collection of your used toilet paper made into paper flowers is novel but screams nothing except "Notice Me! Have I outraged you soccer mothers?" I once experienced a very subtle piece of concept art that really got to me. I can't remember the artist unfortunately but it simply consisted of a wardrobe, a curtain and a pile of cookies. The viewer was invited to peer behind the curtain into the wardrobe. To do that you had to walk on the cookies. Some of the cookies were heart shaped. It was interesting to watch the viewers picking their way along the cookie path but at the same time trying to avoid breaking the hearts.
I saw a piece of art in an Amsterdam museum called 'Hope, faith, love'. It was three square canvases. Hope was a diagonal line going from bottom left to top right. Faith was a vertical line. Love was a horizontal line. I don't know who the artist was (tried to google it, can't find it), but the idea has stayed with me. It resonates.
Much needed video. The question of 'Is this an artwork?' arises again and again especially in context of Contemporary art. This is a good way to understand and answer the question. Thanks Sarah and team.
The "art" is your response to the work, not the work itself. If you're disappointed the artist didn't blow your mind with a very well painted garden or figure... or better- you're angry someone put a folding chair next to a masterwork and called it art- congratulations! You are part of the art. How long will you stand there debating with someone which of the 3 is the chair? That's the art.
After a few months in my parents' basement, I took an apartment near the state university, where I discovered both crystal methamphetamine and conceptual art. Either one of these things are dangerous, but in combination they have the potential to destroy entire civilizations.
In a way - other forms of "art" like music, writing and film are also kind of like "conceptual art." We accept that a writer essentially comes up with the idea for the book and no one expect them to physically publish all the copies. A musician writes the music, and a screenwriter writes the movie script, but what we listen to/watch are copies of a performance. And generally I find that people are comfortable calling musicians, writers and filmmakers "artists."
Great analogy, and super helpful when thinking about conceptual art. As the artists of Fluxus made us realize, art can be an instruction or very literally a "score."
However, in music, we have a wider variety of terms to describe specific roles - musician, composer, conductor, producer and so on. Perhaps one of the problems which the layperson encounters with contemporary art is the everything ends up being lumped into one catch-all, "artist" and, as tempting as it might be to compare conceptual artists to stone carvers, there really is no point. I think that is the problem with a lot of the superficial criticisms of conceptual art. Trying to compare Sol Le Witt to Michelangelo is as ridiculous as asking yourself who was the better musician, Mozart or George Martin?
No offense, but that is a much too liberal reading of conceptual art. It isn't wrong per se but it is incomplete and inaccurate to the history of conceptual art and the culture industry. I think the word you are looking for is probably Text.
@@theartassignment My wife is a Graphic Designer and she brought home a copy of a new book called "There is No F in ART." I thought it said Fine Art at first and paid little attention. On a second glance, I thought it funny & started to read it. It's mainly about Conceptual art, with humorous undertones and funny illustrations. Banksy meets Grayson Perry type humour. I find these AAs very informative and thought provoking - just thought I'd mention it.
That’s a false equivalency comparing multiple copies of a book being printed is comparable to copies of a piece of art being printed not conceptual art and in film it doesn’t matter if the screen play is good if the director and actors don’t do a good job and with music it doesn’t matter how good it is until someone with real talent plays it
I always enjoy your videos. Conceptual art is outside of the realm of what my heart and head call art, but learning about conceptual art is interesting.
Yet another great video from the Art Assignment! As an art conservator, conceptual art is both fascinating and frustrating, but always fun to work with.
Oh my. Yes, it is a bear for conservation. But also a boon in some regards, no? That it can, in many cases, be remade and remade as needed? And as technology evolves?
The Art Assignment It's definitely a boon! :) Our conferences either end up being a mix of philosophy (confounding the conservation scientists who should up) or overly technical (confounding the philosophers). And technology can be a double edged sword. I've found that some artists think that technology will remain static and their works will always live on in the same way ("oh yeah, the projector in the work is integral, so I'd prefer that it keeps getting used" or "I'm sure this VR software will migrate easily in a few decades") so convicing them that we may have to replace or recreate an element of their artwork in the future can get interesting. Overall, many artists are understanding and receptive though :)
The idea of conceptual art can be hard for many to swallow. Looking beyond a definition of art as solely a visual medium but rather as an experience or idea itself. What it may have is intention, the art is created with purpose even if it is created by coincidence or by mistake or by choice of another. It may not have inherent meaning but meaning can be attributed to it if one pleases or interprets it to have meaning. Art can be anything one calls art therefore conceptual art is the essence of art. When one takes apart the meaning of the word art to fit all art, all that one has left is the art itself. Art can be almost anything one sets their mind to. I agree with the video that conceptual art deserves it's respect. Some conceptual art may not be my cup of tea but I will respect it's validity as a form of art. After all who is say what is or isn't art. That's the beauty in art that it is so encompassing and broad that it can fill almost all human experience.
I really don't think people have a problem with conceptual art at its foundation. The problem arises when the craftsmen don't get recognition for the creation of an idea, the work is given a ridiculous price valuation by the artist (people wouldn't call it a fraud if the price tag said $10), or when it is overrepresented in gallery/ museum spaces. There probably isn't much of a debate whether its art or not, but there is certainly room to debate whether it is put on a pedestal at this period of time. I get that the public distaste of much conceptual art is indeed what gives it it's strength, but it's also extremely overlooked that traditional methods of art don't need defending for a reason. Even if we have a subjective distaste for a particular work of art we can still admit to the objective integrity. I'm not sure the same can be said for conceptual art.
I love the idea of Art being Ideas rather than execution of skill. That means art can be a collective experience, which renaissance art never could. Collective as in participatory; a few people collaborating on an art piece, where the collaboration and the creation of the art is almost the most important aspect of it. Being a contributor of a team goes all the way back to our biological instincts. We humans are beasts of burden, why not let that burden be art? In the end, 99% of all art never end up renowned or in world famous galleries, so why even aim for that to begin with? Let's have the collective experience of creating art be the goal instead! Then art could become something which gives us deep meaning (which museums can't do). Thank you for this video
Let's not forget that renaissance art actually was a collaborative effort for lots of famous artworks, however they downplayed this and focused on the single creative "genius" such as Michelangelo. Many, many skilled contemporary and conceptual artworks are also collaborative. For example, the brilliant Doris Salcedo expresses her gratitude for the incredible engineers and architects who without, she would never be able to actualize her work. Many well-known artists use teams of painters and assistants, just as Michelangelo did, to do most of the work or to assist at the idea level, otherwise they would never be able to keep up with the huge commissions they were asked to do in their lifetimes. On the other hand, someone such as Damien Hirst has kept his assistants "hidden" for many years, until they release work under their own names, claiming their own ideas. I agree with you, there is incredible beauty to be found in local artists creating collaborative artworks or experiences with their communities, and great and meaningful art does not have to be limited to high-caliber museums.
This is great. I love the idea of not adding more objects to the world. I also like that the audience can decide if the think something is art. This is very open-handed. Thank you!
Mourning Talk I’d say more is added, by weight, in texts published to justify this work, spaces large enough to display it, schools built around reinforcement. It’s a classist sleight of hand.
I gave this a little thought and what it boils down to, for me at least, is skill. An athlete needs to practice multiple days a week for years to MAYBE be good enough at their sport to compete. A photographer needs to learn lighting, space, color theory, whatever to offer their services (and hope to make a living). However a contemporary artist needs only to verbalize a thought to be considered a "master". Yes the chair may be a statement, but to call it art is like calling a pickup game of basketball professional sports.
@@will0ughby using the same rhetoric, you can discredit photographers the same way: they just have to push a button to be considered masters. It's not the means that needs to be judged, but the art itself, no matter how immaterial.
@@dianadupu1063 thanks for the reply. I don't agree. Just sticking with photography for a moment, we all know the Facebook photographers that do what you say and just hit the shutter button. No one considers them masters. Please don't think that I'm bashing painting or sculpture. I'm not. But in this video we are talking specifically about conceptual. Maybe my hang-up is the lack of a specific medium to develop? Regardless, my point is that there is no outside discrimination involved. Literally any concept can be equal to the next. Going back to photography, yes people have different tastes, but excellent photos are clearly differentiated by poor ones. You can't say the same thing about this outlet.
What an informative video! Art is not only bounded by drawings, brush strokes and images. But rather Art is everything if we open ourselves to everything - tangible and intangible. So good! Wait... Let me watch it again🤩✨
The method of creation is secondary to the idea that brought it into being, but the physical presence is just as important as the idea that brought it into being :)
Nice to see a video about conceptual art on TH-cam in which the comments are positive and not just people who didn't watch the video saying "a six year old could do that" missing the point.
So. Much. Great. Work! This video is swoon after swoon. Like a bunch of warm hugs. I get it when people don’t “get” this kind of art. Sometimes there’s not a lot to “get” and that’s kinda the point. When people criticize some conceptual art I just want to shush them and say, “Just look at it. What is there? What is it doing?” Like stumbling upon a deer in the forest and just watching it as it eats and then walks off, and then taking a breath and saying to yourself, “Wow, that was special.”
Drew, It's only because this crap is in a gallery. Put it out on the street and people walk past it as trash. Then the dump wagon comes along and it gets tossed in. So you see a banana taped to a canvas and hung on the gallery wall to be special like a deer in the forest? Conceptual artists should be paid with conceptual money, Tracey Emin should have been payed in condoms.
@@spellbound111 yeah that's interesting isn't it? how some things are only considered art in certain contexts. I wonder if there's ever been an art movement that explores this idea...
I'm glad you use your very convincing powers for good. this series always brings up something I never gave much thought in such an interesting narrative :)
A great tool to help explain the value of conceptual art (Idea, perception and context) to those who think "real" art can only be about craft and technical skill.
I am not an art person, I have much more of a science background, but I really enjoy conceptual art, especially when it is self aware enough to recognize its own silliness. Art that can be both profound and silly is my favorite.
As someone who considers himself an artist, I admittedly still don't fully understand art. Which then makes me feel feelings that in turn makes me question if I'm an artist. Which is ultimately what art does. So here I am again, back at the beginning.
These "Case For..." videos are so helpful in my high school art classes. I'd love to see a "The Case for Expressionism" video someday. Expressionism tends to get under-emphasized in high school classes for a variety of reasons but I believe it can be a powerful mode of representation for young artists.
This makes me very happy to hear! And thanks for the suggestion. While we haven't made that exact video, our cases for Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock might fill the roll in the meantime and share the ideas behind Expressionism for your students.
I will check them out. I've been on the hunt for a great video about German Expressionism and the Bridge artists in particular. That stuff, as well as later representational Expressionists like Guston, Kiefer, and Basquiat was so liberating for me in high school. I'm always trying to find ways to 'liberate' my students from the stranglehold that strict naturalism has on them.
Conceptual art (and other similar unorthodox styles of art such as fluxus) has always challenged me, as I've always had a hard time trying to "understand" it. Videos like these really help me understand the philosophy behind them and give me a foundation from which I can start appreciating them more.
Videos like this never mention that Duchamp said his goal was to destroy art. Later in life he said he failed in his goal. The best that can be said of him is of the 20th century's most famous failed painters he was the least destructive.
I know I missed the prime commenting time but: Can we talk about that last sentence at 10:24? How can ideas last forever when the context for which we engage with art is always changing? Don't ideas evolve as they are communicated from one to the next? So aren't ideas (and therefore conceptual art) as equally susceptible to the erosion of time as a painting or sculpture? And of two (chosen with extreme bias, admittedly) works of art: Felix Gonzalez-Torres' "untitled" billboard depicting two pillows on a bed done in 1991, and Michelangelo's David, finished in 1504, which piece has held it's original concept most in tact now that it is 2018? Sorry to cherry-pick that one statement and try to build an existential crisis out of it, but I think the declaration is deserving of critique.
It's funny, Because often the defense for conceptual art is don't worry about the aesthetics or the immediate visceral experience you get in the gallery that may leave you cold... For me it's almost always traditional art that leaves me completely cold. It's like okay good You can control a paintbrush well and replicate what you can see That's a nice skill but so what? When I enter the gallery space and I see something that takes me genuinely by surprise something that gives me an unexpected experience which makes me think and laugh and feel, it's never because of somebody's technical skills which I find basically boring and something anyone could learn if they just spent enough time at it. What really moves me is the ideas behind the thing. For example in opening of this video the picture of the chair the chair and the dictionary definition of the chair, as soon as I saw this work I immediately had an emotional reaction to it, a pleasurable emotional reaction - I immediately saw the contrasting of various levels of reality with regard to a chair and still no chair was there... That's far more interesting and emotionally moving to me than say a meticulously rendered portrait of a person looking inscrutable. That's just boring and I've seen it a thousand thousand times before and to be honest I wasn't that interested the first time.
I've realised that while I was at Witkacy exhibition. I overheard an old woman, saying what she sees to a blind person and I heard him say "ooh this one is my favorite". It was one of the most beautiful things i've ever experienced.
When you realize following the instructions of artists to make unique pieces of art in weekly assignments can be interpreted as one big piece or even many pieces of conceptual art........
Something brought out is usually like a rug, you're usually up in arms over your own smoke. Typical case of "if you give an artist context" Particular about particularities. All humanities are important! Which is such a struggle for me personally to come to love them all, but I love the ventilation of it all. There's a couple of these I Wish to find myself in the presence of so as to find what I reflect upon in my own body of work. Just discovered this channel on my journey. So now it's time to cycle off the mortality rate cuz. We're huffing and puffing over our own posts! They say what they say! We'd know this if we were socially conceptual! There should be more to love than ventures lost in Space. Don't be devoid of prison sentences. Play the game of life, push forth and be well-managed. The next commoner good should never be you and I. Thanks for the inspiration to post!
I just visited the deCordova in Lincoln, Massachusetts; it was amazing. I saw a LeWitt tower and Yayoi Kusama's "Where The Lights In My Heart Go", and many other extraordinary things.
Great video, I loved thinking about the aesthetics of communities outside of the western tradition during this video, particularly the aesthetic philosophies of nomadic communities that focus the ephemeral, the idea, or body decoration. It highlights for me how these conceptual artists try to change our aesthetic understanding of the world and not just the art world. Thank you
I made a conceptual art piece for a final project exam. It got me a very high grade and even an award and I don't even know why. This video sorta helped me understand it more though.
It's because people are too afraid to admit they don't get it. Most people probably saw your concept art and thought it was shit and had no intriguing meaning, but then again no one wants to say it, cause then you will be accused of 'just not understanding it' Imo this is the main reason artists like pollock, duchamp, even picasso are held on such a high pedestal
While conceptual art may have its place (great video, by the way), any enterprising bloke with a vivid imagination, a knack for salesmanship, and a gift of gab can convince a connoisseur that a banana duct-taped on a canvas is meaningful enough to be worth gobs of money. And therein lies the problem with conceptual art: it only becomes valuable to the art establishment when it is declared as such by a curator, and displayed in an area that said establishment determines to be able to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary. A toilet only becomes ART when it is displayed in a gallery. Take the same toilet outside, then it magically transforms back into a poop bin. Then you have the sidewalk artist who makes impressive wire sculptures, or paints dreamy landscapes with coffee. To the ordinary folk, that's art, even if it's on the sidewalk, but it's mostly ignored by the art establishment because it's not in galleries, and don't have exhibit titles such as "Prognostications of Ennui," whatever that means. Has The Art Assignment ever talked about the "art market?"
This is why many craftmanship artist hates "conceptual artist" and their bollocks of art galleries managers/curators. But look, the museum attendance of these conceptual art get lower and lower each day...
I personally feel like one of the biggest factors in art is originality, which kinda ties into creativity , big components in conceptual art and art in general imo
People say "anyone can do that!" So Anyone--please do it! ( Even this could be the basis as a conceptual-text piece.) Also I think lots of pop music is conceptual because music arises from ideas about sound organization and how it is shaped into cultural objects through memesis, or whatever causes it to be popular, and not solely on talent or technique.
Thank you for this. I have always disliked much contemporary art, but this has taught me to appreciate it like I do genres of music that I don't like. Speaking of music: THIS IS SO MUCH LIKE SHEET MUSIC!!! I applaud you for making me excited about a movement of contemporary art: It's like poetry! :D
"It may now be said that that an object becomes, or fails to become, a work of art in direct response to the inclination of the perceiver to assume an appreciative role. As Morse Peckham has put it, '...art is not a category of perceptual fields but of role-playing.'" That quote from Victor Burgin was the epiphany for me. Cuts to the core of the insecurity that says, when looking at conceptual art "but is this the Emperor's New Clothes, though? Is someone laughing at me? Am I being fooled?" The truth is of course that it doesn't matter. In that moment there is the work, and there is you, and from then on it is on you. It's liberating, and very 1960s.
I would have argued that the chair exhibit is a representation of the semiotic triangle. The chair itself is the object in the world, the photograph is the representation in the mind and the definition of the word 'chair' is the meaning of the concept.
You may not know it, but I'm currently doing a performance art and a conceptual art piece right at this moment. I title it: "Procrastination". This is truly an everyperson sort of art. In fact, I'd wager that a good number of people are already masters of this ancient art.
The problem with this video is, when making the case for conceptual art, it's not enough to argue that it's art, but whether it's valid art. Is it worthwhile? Does it satisfy any need, social or otherwise? So it doesn't matter if Kosuth called his chair art, or if anyone else does. It doesn't matter if it was anti-materialistic, anti-establishment, activist, political, trendy, or simply pretentious. What matters is, is it worth looking at and contemplating? Is it worth my time? This then begs the question, what makes any art worthwhile? Well, here's a list of things art has done over millennia: 1. Support a social hierarchy/institution 2. Give pleasure 3. To establish an identity, personal or social 4. To document history 5. To see through someone else's eyes 6. To criticize society 7. To ask big questions In terms of conceptual art, where do these roles come into play? It's not a question you can answer across the board, but you need to consider it for each individual work. Kosuth's chair certainly helps establish his identity as an intellectual (or wannabe), but does it ask any big questions? Does it criticize society? If so, it's not by the definition to the right nor the photo on the left. We know which is the most "chair" - the physical one you can sit on. That's true regardless whether or not anyone sits in it. So, does that fact make a point about the larger world? Were people in the 60's confusing symbols and verbiage with real truth? Was he saying, if we can't agree on what a real chair is, then how can we agree on anything else? It could be worth looking up, but then again, if the work itself doesn't offer enough clues to explain itself, is it really a success? To what extent should an artwork be a puzzle? If you, as an artist, have something to say, shouldn't you just say it? What if Kosuth used a more traditional approach to making the same statement? Norman Rockwell made incredibly powerful artworks criticizing society, without resorting to puzzle-making. I'm not saying all conceptual work is valid nor invalid, but that historical context, definitions, and a few statements of support from whatever talking heads is not enough to build a case. There are deeper questions that need to be addressed.
Reporter: "Why do you just make copies of things over and over? Why don't you make anything original?" Warhol: "Uh, because it's easier." It's art because I say it's art. Sorry about your PhD.
@L. ka Yeah. We humans tend to look at things we can't understand and dismiss it as if they have no meaning and no value because we can't understand it .
I suppose that this video was intended to make the case for conceptual art in general, rather than for any specific piece. The questions you have are good ones.
Hear2. This is why i often disliked many conceptual exibitions. They want us to think..and do things...but when we asked those things above..even the artist dismissed us just by saying "you dont get it". And they say it was "inclusive" art. The hell!?
I don't know if the artist, Joseph Cosuth, was referencing this, but the presentation of his "One And Three Chairs" piece evoked for me Thoreau's "I have one chair for solitude, two chairs for company and three chairs for society" quote.
Ideas are great, and conceptual art based on great ideas is great. The problem is, especially from outside, sometimes those ideas don't look that great to begin with. It's the millionth reiteration that "everything is art if you accept that it" really an idea worth praising? Sometime it doesn't feel like it...It doesn't help that we get exposed to so much mediocre art through our lives... And the general sensation is that if you think that art is not that great, you aren't allow to say it, cause it's conceptual, if you don't like it, it's cause you don't get it. And this adds up with the idea artists aren't supposed to ever explain themselves. I like museum, I never really studied art, but I like the sensation there is something to understand and analyse, something someone wanted me to understand, or even the idea that the something do understand wasn't really there, and the artist wanted me and they to find it in the mix that is the dialectic between us. But there need to be honesty involved, and sometime, it really doesn't look like there is any kind of good ideas behind it, and you are not allow to said that you don't think that is based on good ideas, or the result of an interesting process or career, and maybe you would like to get some kind of hint, or explanation, and it's not there cause artists are not supposed to explain their art, and it's frustrating and keeping people away from art, cause it makes everything look like they are only there to strike their ego. It surely isn't helping me going more to museum.
waterglass21 that is your personal opinion. You are free to think that, but I doubt any serious art critic or even relevant artist will agree with you on that.
waterglass21 honestly, the absurdity of a TH-cam commentator spitting romantic pseudo bullshit and belittling people who actually work with art for a living is too much for me. Enjoy your art however you like it, and leave me out of it. Have a nice day
I hated...HATED... the "The Comedienne", by Catallan, because of it's inflated cost. But after watching this video, I now appreciate the concept behind it. Heck I now appreciate concept art in general.
There are so many great quotes (and humorous phrases!) I almost want to quote the whole thing! Thank you so much for making this and bringing to light how conceptual art is about engaging with context, the myriad of our senses, and our sensibilities, and that it doesn't seem like (traditional) art since, in many ways, that was its purpose, to stretch our understanding (of art and of our experience and our inner thoughts). And I love conceptual art for just that, even in those times when my gut reaction is to automatically think "what the actual..." :P Powerful episode!
The way we learned it in my class, was that it represented different levels of realness. The picture, the object, the idea - which is most real? My teacher argued that the idea is most real, because the idea of chair can be any chair. The object can only be one chair, and in a museum doesn't function as a chair anymore. The photo is least real, but the one that would normally be displayed in a museum. Just food for thought.
Thank you for this. It cemented in my mind something I didn't really realize - I LOVE conceptual art! I get EXCITED by some conceptual pieces - like several of the ones you showed in this video - in a way that I haven't often been with other types.
Thanks again. Always interesting, always intriguing, and always respectful of different positions. Really love the Art Assignment (and said so in the survey!).
My first thought was:"it's not a band.It's an idea" (props to you if you get the reference).Seriously though after watching art assignment videos I feel truly educated.Thank you for doing this!!
Before you consider if each one is "art", you must ask before: "what the heck is art". And if you a bit trickster you should probably have asked yourself why the need to define these as art.
I disagree strongly about conceptual art being the slippery art that avoids ownership. I adore this series and understand that it is a choice to become a perceived, but I wanted to share Avelina Lesper with y’all. She’s a Mexican art critic who has a very good case against conceptual art based precisely on how it’s a money making machine and a money making “agreement” between the elites, the artists who don’t invest time, and the galleries. I think Joseph campbell would also disagree with this case, especially because he thought that artist ought to be the makers of mythology in our time, the makers of a metaphorical entry to the unconscious or invisible. Personally, I find it ineffective and at times a bit insulting that when the viewer says “don’t get it, don’t like it” they are now confronted with “you’re not open enough” instead of an “I guess I didn’t do my job”. In any case it seems to me like conceptual artists aspired to be philosophers that skipped the whole writing process, and graphic philosophy is still philosophy! Much much love to your team, I love his channel and I always learn something new
Ahhh yes, Avelina L. As a Mexican myself I’m profoundly against her. I think what needs to be said here is that she does actually value art from a skill-aesthetic-traditional viewpoint, and that’s why she attacks conceptual within the art market. The art market itself is a whole other thing that needs to be observed on its own because the intrinsic question that Avelina never asks: is it ok for a traditional painting piece to be valued at the same overblown prices as conceptual pieces? To my understanding, she would (since I have not seen her actually do so) defend a really really high price for a “classic” painting over a conceptual piece. More than a conspiracy of rich people and galleries, we should be asking why does it hurt that conceptual pieces can arise to seemingly stupid prices and no hurt is felt when the same prices are tagged to traditional pieces? I think Joseph Campbell’s idea is as valid as any conceptual artist’s one in the sense that those are their thoughts about art and none is an absolute truth about it. You are pretty right about the point of someone claiming that someone that does not get it is not open enough. No one should be judged like that instantly. But let’s remember that this should also go the other way around. No one should claim “this is not art and its bullshit” and have (I’m including myself here) the humbleness to say “I do not get it” or “I prefer something else”. About your last point, you are absolutely correct…without the negative connotations. Conceptual art, for the most part, is a form of philosophical experience and I think this is key to its understanding. Why would philosophers only restrain themselves to pen and paper? Is philosophy something that only belongs in a book? I do agree that graphic philosophy is still philosophy but expanding the experience can be something really positive for philosophy itself. If you think about it you now have 2 different forms of initial art experiences, one that starts from the aesthetic-retinal-skillful way, and another that starts by confronting something that generates thought in a similar way that a book does but it’s not literature. Do they need to be against each other? The answer, of course, is no.
Chuy Oz Chuy Oz I’m Mexican too fam, I appreciate your comment. At the end of the day I can appreciate conceptual art as a concept but as art... they gotta work harder than premade. Joseph Campbell is a philosopher and writer who I agree with often and I look for that element in art, to create what wasn’t there before. Some conceptual pieces are based on putting a phrase like “a word and an object which that word describes are not the same thing” into an unintelligible abstract used to belittle people who are not willing to accept that as an artistic experience and to fuel the intellectual elitism of those who want things that are very easily made and reproduce to be worth a ton. So idk! There’s gotta be some exceptions but in general.. that’s how I feel. (Also one of avelina‘s fav contemporary artists I would not describe as traditionally skillful in the slightest aaa I forget the name I’ll get back to you)
This is a very good and important point! It is hard to deny that the art market has found a way to institutionalize and cash in on conceptual art. I feel strongly that conceptual art is dead in a post-Cambridge Analytica 2018. The strategies of the early conceptual artists were incisive then - especially while curators and board members tried to figure out how to archive and commodify it - but as is expected, they have been defanged now. I do think that history is sometimes just a battle of ideas and culture, a marketplace of ideas. Conceptual art was ahead of the art world for a second but now it's ben tamed and put squarely in that money making machine in the marketplace. If anything, the trollish and irreverent nature of conceptual art has just migrated to the infinite internet communities.
potbotra; I agree with the gist of what you are saying here. The Conceptual Art movement (1967-1972) was powerful at undermining the art institutions and art market for a short time…. before eventually being gobbled up. It was during this time that Clement Greenberg's Modernism, that had been the mainstream art was finally overthrown. I think it is important to differentiate the Conceptual Art movement from contemporary art or 'conceptual art' that is now being globalised!
Divertissement Monas of course! I don’t think any of us think that contemporary art should be criticized just because it is contemporary. I place contemporary and conceptual art in very different classifications
"Do we... stop?" "I don't..., I don't know. I mean, they're not orange cones. They're just... boots." "What kind of crazy person carries around so many boots? And why put them in the road? It's an obstruction to traffic is what it is. Something ought to be done."
Menarik mendengarkan penjelasan tentang konseptual art. Konseprual art adalah salah satu seni yg berbeda saja, seperti juga kelahiran berbagai gaya seni sebelumnya. Semua memiliki komunitas dan pecintanya sendiri.
Hello, if anyone else would like to cuss out strangers online please be informed that whatever is randomly stated on a youtube comment is neither a dictionary definition set in stone nor a summary from a full thesis. do you think art is shit? sure why not. do you think art is a movement of self expression? ok then. do you think art is only validated as Real Art if they are presented in a gallery? whatever you say boss. anyone who would like to add what they think is Art Is is welcome to do so by filling in the following blanks: Art is _______________________. And remember, if you think that you are entitled to start throwing negative energy on the internet, I would highly suggest you consider getting some vitamin E & having some fun with friends. Thank you.
My first thought was, "I genuinely prefer the three chairs." :-) Although Magritte _Ceci n'est pas une pipe_ , Plato and his ideals, and a few others (Wittgenstein(?)), might already have made the same point.
@@zacozacoify There's the actual chair (the physical object), a representation of a chair (the photograph) and the dictionary definition (the description) of a chair...All three are chairs.
Super interesting video. Conceptual art seems to be so underappreciated outside specific circles and it's a massive shame. I can appreciate the skill and significance behind traditional forms of art but find that the reward is greater when one finds meaning in a conceptual work. It takes processing and sometimes background knowledge to make the most of so, to me at least, is a much more compelling way of putting a message across than a pretty (or not to pretty) picture.
Has anyone noticed that Art Assignment only reponds to comments of praise? And if you butter up Art Assignment enough the you get rewarded with a little red heart.
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
which chair is more of a chair: a photograph of a chair, a dictionary definition of a chair, or a chair in a museum that no one can sit on anymore, rendering the chair useless?
i love art so much holy shit
This is actually an insightful reading of the piece. I wish more conceptual arts provide rooms for this kind of interpretation instead of acting cocky and elite.
I must do the Holy Shit piece
Is that a real question
So what if the chair is useless? It still is a chair, and much more of a chair than the 2 other versions. One is a literary description of what a chair is, the other one is a visual description, but the third one _is_ a chair. There are probably some chairs in my house that weren't sat on in months, but that doesn't make them any less chair-ey.
@@smorcrux426 a good question to ask then too is if a box you sit on is more of a chair than the photograph or the definition of one. is sitting on a chair what defines it as a chair or is it the design and structure of it? you bring up good points, i won't lie. discussing it in detail is why i love this and why i made the comment in the first place.
Possibly one of the greatest (and certainly one of the most underrated) youtube channels.
Tete Recinos. Take off your blinkers.
"Marble Fades, Paintings fade, but ideas can last forever." love this
What a great video. I learned so much about conceptual art. -John
Shipped.
Hey John, you don't have to sell books anymore, because you yourself ARE a conceptual artist on your own! If I were you, I would rip off every single page of your books and hang them on walls, calling them conceptual art. After all, ideas matter, right?
*John 3:16
^ see? conceptual art!
Ways to use this video:
1) send it to relatives and friends who often question just what the hell you are doing with your life.
2) watch it when you question what the hell you are doing with your life.
3) luxuriate in the genius of conceptual art and situational aesthetics.
4) be an art machine.
Be an art machine!!
"watch it when you question what the hell you are doing with your life." LOL. Yep. Truly tho I stopped this vid over and over again to take notes to luxuriate in concepts which I cherish in my own art-making process but which I had self-doubt about.
YES!!
Conceptual art saved my life. I may not have even lived before I found it.
@@butterflybullet How do conceptual artists make a living?
ppl hate on conceptual art but i found it really useful after going to art school and learning how to develop ideas for work. i’m not a conceptual artist but there are a lot of things from the movement you can translate over to works with imagery with what people would typically think of as art
After a few months in my parents' basement, I took an apartment near the state university, where I discovered both crystal methamphetamine and conceptual art. Either one of these things are dangerous, but in combination they have the potential to destroy entire civilizations.
So the IAN BURN XEROX Book was the original deep fried memes?
Leba Babel L M A O
Noise, texture, and visual interest generated from flaws or limitations in an automated and soulless reproduction process.
Nah, that would be Duchamp's LHOOQ
The Case For videos are my favorite! Love art.
I certainly don't like conceptual art in the slightest, but it's always good to learn the justifications and philosophies behind these sorts of things.
Giving people what they want in exchange for money is stealing, apparently. Just money moving from rich people to rich people. Worry more about how they get their money rather than how they spend it.
It seems like you are trapped between the main two questionable ways of approaching art: taste (liking or disliking), and justification. For me it's something else, beyond all that.
Its okay disliking art genre. Me myself dislike abstract expressionism especially pollock. But i like the history about it. My most favourite genre is outsider.
@Wenceslao Futanaki indeed there are so many fake outsider out there. I hate when they said that they are outsider. True outsider artists makes art not because money but because their own reason and its unknown to us. Take vivian maier, she takes photograph because she love doing it. Adolf wolfie does the same, and so does tichy. Tichy is a unique case as he was once study at the art institute but consider outsider. Also cuz he live in year of so many fake outsider (2000s).
Main reason i hate pollock is because the work gets famous because of the advertisement and commercialism. He literally just pour paint into the canvas without any meaning in my eyes. I still don't know why i dislike abstract expressionism so much when i like any othet art genre.
Thank you for your kind reply.
Isn't conceptual art and postmodernism kinda used to ridicule the classic 'high' art? Artwork that becomes famous or expensive also because of the history, the process or even because of the artist themselves. The point of some conceptual art, especially postmodern art, is that the actual artwork can only last for a moment in time or is purposely just garbage compare to the classic which can last for a very long time. Why? Because the message is the most important. The question, the answer, the emotion or the idea created from the audience themselves are the main goal of this genre. That may be why sometimes the process or even the reason why the artist did it is not important. Unlike the classic artworks that are straightforward where you, even with different culture or background, can still understand the idea behind it. Not this genre. Depending on what you have learned and experience, what message you see may be different from the person next to you.
Ooof, I guess I did write a lot. But, yeah, that is just my opinion. Tho it's true that having these type of art put in the museum is kinda counterproductive but I think it is ok if they really did throw the artwork themselves away when its time to let go. And keep the documentation of the process so we know it exists.
Finally. PBS has shows about art. I wish this was on the ALL ARTS channel. They keep showing the same things from 4 years ago and The Art Vault is artists from 100 years ago.
In life there are some concepts that don't appeal to me and there are some concepts I love. Some ideas need context, some are self explanatory, some can never be understood.
This is mirrored in the world of Concept Art. One of the best feelings in the world is that sublime realisation of suddenly "getting" a work of art, that wonderful peak when you actually hear what the piece is trying to tell.
Of all the Art styles, Concept Art (to me) has the most success and also the most failures. There are some very bad Concept Artists out there that know no subtlety and resort to "shock", " confrontation" and the old standby " pushing boundaries". This is stupid and lazy, yes that collection of your used toilet paper made into paper flowers is novel but screams nothing except "Notice Me! Have I outraged you soccer mothers?"
I once experienced a very subtle piece of concept art that really got to me. I can't remember the artist unfortunately but it simply consisted of a wardrobe, a curtain and a pile of cookies. The viewer was invited to peer behind the curtain into the wardrobe. To do that you had to walk on the cookies. Some of the cookies were heart shaped. It was interesting to watch the viewers picking their way along the cookie path but at the same time trying to avoid breaking the hearts.
^^How many times can I like one post. ^^^ I hate the attention mob.
Oh wow. Your description of that art piece in your last paragraph hit me like a sledgehammer. That's beautiful! Thank you for sharing it!
Hmmm
Reading Yoko Ono's Grapefruit drew me into the beautiful world of conceptual art and completely changed how I think of art forever
Legendary channel
I love your stuff! Keep it up man!
You're on a hella lot of comment sections
I saw a piece of art in an Amsterdam museum called 'Hope, faith, love'. It was three square canvases. Hope was a diagonal line going from bottom left to top right. Faith was a vertical line. Love was a horizontal line. I don't know who the artist was (tried to google it, can't find it), but the idea has stayed with me. It resonates.
Should of asked...whoever in charge ...don't they have their label on the art ?
❤that that art grasped you 👍
Much needed video. The question of 'Is this an artwork?' arises again and again especially in context of Contemporary art. This is a good way to understand and answer the question. Thanks Sarah and team.
If conceptual art isn't art then conceptual movies aren't movies, and conceptual music isn't music
@@_yellow rightly put
@@_yellow which they aren't.
@@robokill387 Not? Are experimental aircraft aircraft? If you say no, then that's hipocrisy.
You disappear lol
The "art" is your response to the work, not the work itself. If you're disappointed the artist didn't blow your mind with a very well painted garden or figure... or better- you're angry someone put a folding chair next to a masterwork and called it art- congratulations! You are part of the art. How long will you stand there debating with someone which of the 3 is the chair? That's the art.
After a few months in my parents' basement, I took an apartment near the state university, where I discovered both crystal methamphetamine and conceptual art. Either one of these things are dangerous, but in combination they have the potential to destroy entire civilizations.
Marbles crumble, paintings fade, but ideas, ideas can last forever
That's about sums up the video
What a thorough, comprehensive introduction to conceptual art. It completely changed my perspective on art.
In a way - other forms of "art" like music, writing and film are also kind of like "conceptual art." We accept that a writer essentially comes up with the idea for the book and no one expect them to physically publish all the copies. A musician writes the music, and a screenwriter writes the movie script, but what we listen to/watch are copies of a performance. And generally I find that people are comfortable calling musicians, writers and filmmakers "artists."
Great analogy, and super helpful when thinking about conceptual art. As the artists of Fluxus made us realize, art can be an instruction or very literally a "score."
However, in music, we have a wider variety of terms to describe specific roles - musician, composer, conductor, producer and so on. Perhaps one of the problems which the layperson encounters with contemporary art is the everything ends up being lumped into one catch-all, "artist" and, as tempting as it might be to compare conceptual artists to stone carvers, there really is no point. I think that is the problem with a lot of the superficial criticisms of conceptual art. Trying to compare Sol Le Witt to Michelangelo is as ridiculous as asking yourself who was the better musician, Mozart or George Martin?
No offense, but that is a much too liberal reading of conceptual art. It isn't wrong per se but it is incomplete and inaccurate to the history of conceptual art and the culture industry. I think the word you are looking for is probably Text.
@@theartassignment My wife is a Graphic Designer and she brought home a copy of a new book called "There is No F in ART." I thought it said Fine Art at first and paid little attention. On a second glance, I thought it funny & started to read it. It's mainly about Conceptual art, with humorous undertones and funny illustrations. Banksy meets Grayson Perry type humour. I find these AAs very informative and thought provoking - just thought I'd mention it.
That’s a false equivalency comparing multiple copies of a book being printed is comparable to copies of a piece of art being printed not conceptual art and in film it doesn’t matter if the screen play is good if the director and actors don’t do a good job and with music it doesn’t matter how good it is until someone with real talent plays it
I don't know how many of these ideas are supposed to be funny, but I find most of them funny
I always enjoy your videos. Conceptual art is outside of the realm of what my heart and head call art, but learning about conceptual art is interesting.
That’s all a gal can ask for. Thanks, Margaret Moon.
I love that the survey link takes you to a page that asks if you want to create a survey
Yet another great video from the Art Assignment! As an art conservator, conceptual art is both fascinating and frustrating, but always fun to work with.
Oh my. Yes, it is a bear for conservation. But also a boon in some regards, no? That it can, in many cases, be remade and remade as needed? And as technology evolves?
The Art Assignment It's definitely a boon! :) Our conferences either end up being a mix of philosophy (confounding the conservation scientists who should up) or overly technical (confounding the philosophers).
And technology can be a double edged sword. I've found that some artists think that technology will remain static and their works will always live on in the same way ("oh yeah, the projector in the work is integral, so I'd prefer that it keeps getting used" or "I'm sure this VR software will migrate easily in a few decades") so convicing them that we may have to replace or recreate an element of their artwork in the future can get interesting. Overall, many artists are understanding and receptive though :)
The idea of conceptual art can be hard for many to swallow. Looking beyond a definition of art as solely a visual medium but rather as an experience or idea itself. What it may have is intention, the art is created with purpose even if it is created by coincidence or by mistake or by choice of another. It may not have inherent meaning but meaning can be attributed to it if one pleases or interprets it to have meaning. Art can be anything one calls art therefore conceptual art is the essence of art. When one takes apart the meaning of the word art to fit all art, all that one has left is the art itself. Art can be almost anything one sets their mind to. I agree with the video that conceptual art deserves it's respect. Some conceptual art may not be my cup of tea but I will respect it's validity as a form of art. After all who is say what is or isn't art. That's the beauty in art that it is so encompassing and broad that it can fill almost all human experience.
I really don't think people have a problem with conceptual art at its foundation. The problem arises when the craftsmen don't get recognition for the creation of an idea, the work is given a ridiculous price valuation by the artist (people wouldn't call it a fraud if the price tag said $10), or when it is overrepresented in gallery/ museum spaces. There probably isn't much of a debate whether its art or not, but there is certainly room to debate whether it is put on a pedestal at this period of time. I get that the public distaste of much conceptual art is indeed what gives it it's strength, but it's also extremely overlooked that traditional methods of art don't need defending for a reason. Even if we have a subjective distaste for a particular work of art we can still admit to the objective integrity. I'm not sure the same can be said for conceptual art.
I dont know why. But you guys are changing my view for art every video of yours i click on
I still am not a fan of conceptual art, but I really enjoyed the video and I'll try to keep my mind more open when consuming conceptual art
That's all anyone can ask of you.
Congrats, you just became 100% sapient. Er., well, 3 years ago anyway.
i love conceptual art.
@@taewootaewoo4982why
Coming back to this video after watching a different person discuss Duchamp and appreciating once more just how great this entire series was
I love the idea of Art being Ideas rather than execution of skill. That means art can be a collective experience, which renaissance art never could. Collective as in participatory; a few people collaborating on an art piece, where the collaboration and the creation of the art is almost the most important aspect of it. Being a contributor of a team goes all the way back to our biological instincts. We humans are beasts of burden, why not let that burden be art? In the end, 99% of all art never end up renowned or in world famous galleries, so why even aim for that to begin with? Let's have the collective experience of creating art be the goal instead! Then art could become something which gives us deep meaning (which museums can't do).
Thank you for this video
This is very beautifully said.Thank you!
Let's not forget that renaissance art actually was a collaborative effort for lots of famous artworks, however they downplayed this and focused on the single creative "genius" such as Michelangelo. Many, many skilled contemporary and conceptual artworks are also collaborative. For example, the brilliant Doris Salcedo expresses her gratitude for the incredible engineers and architects who without, she would never be able to actualize her work. Many well-known artists use teams of painters and assistants, just as Michelangelo did, to do most of the work or to assist at the idea level, otherwise they would never be able to keep up with the huge commissions they were asked to do in their lifetimes. On the other hand, someone such as Damien Hirst has kept his assistants "hidden" for many years, until they release work under their own names, claiming their own ideas.
I agree with you, there is incredible beauty to be found in local artists creating collaborative artworks or experiences with their communities, and great and meaningful art does not have to be limited to high-caliber museums.
This is great. I love the idea of not adding more objects to the world. I also like that the audience can decide if the think something is art. This is very open-handed. Thank you!
Mourning Talk I’d say more is added, by weight, in texts published to justify this work, spaces large enough to display it, schools built around reinforcement. It’s a classist sleight of hand.
@@goeth89b Good point. The shadow side. Industry!
Conceptual art needs to be constantly defended from people who are obsessed with holding it at par with traditional art. Great video.
I gave this a little thought and what it boils down to, for me at least, is skill. An athlete needs to practice multiple days a week for years to MAYBE be good enough at their sport to compete. A photographer needs to learn lighting, space, color theory, whatever to offer their services (and hope to make a living). However a contemporary artist needs only to verbalize a thought to be considered a "master". Yes the chair may be a statement, but to call it art is like calling a pickup game of basketball professional sports.
@@will0ughby using the same rhetoric, you can discredit photographers the same way: they just have to push a button to be considered masters. It's not the means that needs to be judged, but the art itself, no matter how immaterial.
@@dianadupu1063 thanks for the reply. I don't agree. Just sticking with photography for a moment, we all know the Facebook photographers that do what you say and just hit the shutter button. No one considers them masters. Please don't think that I'm bashing painting or sculpture. I'm not. But in this video we are talking specifically about conceptual. Maybe my hang-up is the lack of a specific medium to develop? Regardless, my point is that there is no outside discrimination involved. Literally any concept can be equal to the next. Going back to photography, yes people have different tastes, but excellent photos are clearly differentiated by poor ones. You can't say the same thing about this outlet.
@@will0ughby 100% agree
@@will0ughby does an artwork have to require massive amounts of skill to make for it to be valuable? think about your answer
This Chanel is so so underrated
What an informative video!
Art is not only bounded by drawings, brush strokes and images. But rather Art is everything if we open ourselves to everything - tangible and intangible.
So good! Wait... Let me watch it again🤩✨
The method of creation is secondary to the idea that brought it into being, but the physical presence is just as important as the idea that brought it into being :)
Nice to see a video about conceptual art on TH-cam in which the comments are positive and not just people who didn't watch the video saying "a six year old could do that" missing the point.
Oh just wait. They'll come ;). But in the meantime, let's enjoy it!
@@theartassignment You sound so pompous and pretentious with that comment.
@@theartassignment No talented artist becomes a conceptual artist.
Best art channel on TH-cam 💕
Thanks for your work
This was amazing. When she pointed out the existence of the chair in the 3 forms my mind was blown hahaha.
So. Much. Great. Work!
This video is swoon after swoon. Like a bunch of warm hugs.
I get it when people don’t “get” this kind of art. Sometimes there’s not a lot to “get” and that’s kinda the point. When people criticize some conceptual art I just want to shush them and say, “Just look at it. What is there? What is it doing?”
Like stumbling upon a deer in the forest and just watching it as it eats and then walks off, and then taking a breath and saying to yourself, “Wow, that was special.”
Drew, It's only because this crap is in a gallery. Put it out on the street and people walk past it as trash. Then the dump wagon comes along and it gets tossed in.
So you see a banana taped to a canvas and hung on the gallery wall to be special like a deer in the forest?
Conceptual artists should be paid with conceptual money, Tracey Emin should have been payed in condoms.
@@spellbound111 yeah that's interesting isn't it? how some things are only considered art in certain contexts. I wonder if there's ever been an art movement that explores this idea...
I'm glad you use your very convincing powers for good. this series always brings up something I never gave much thought in such an interesting narrative :)
"ideas can last forever"... so true
A great tool to help explain the value of conceptual art (Idea, perception and context) to those who think "real" art can only be about craft and technical skill.
I am not an art person, I have much more of a science background, but I really enjoy conceptual art, especially when it is self aware enough to recognize its own silliness.
Art that can be both profound and silly is my favorite.
As someone who considers himself an artist, I admittedly still don't fully understand art. Which then makes me feel feelings that in turn makes me question if I'm an artist. Which is ultimately what art does. So here I am again, back at the beginning.
You made no sense .
These "Case For..." videos are so helpful in my high school art classes. I'd love to see a "The Case for Expressionism" video someday. Expressionism tends to get under-emphasized in high school classes for a variety of reasons but I believe it can be a powerful mode of representation for young artists.
This makes me very happy to hear! And thanks for the suggestion. While we haven't made that exact video, our cases for Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock might fill the roll in the meantime and share the ideas behind Expressionism for your students.
I will check them out. I've been on the hunt for a great video about German Expressionism and the Bridge artists in particular. That stuff, as well as later representational Expressionists like Guston, Kiefer, and Basquiat was so liberating for me in high school. I'm always trying to find ways to 'liberate' my students from the stranglehold that strict naturalism has on them.
Conceptual art (and other similar unorthodox styles of art such as fluxus) has always challenged me, as I've always had a hard time trying to "understand" it. Videos like these really help me understand the philosophy behind them and give me a foundation from which I can start appreciating them more.
Videos like this never mention that Duchamp said his goal was to destroy art. Later in life he said he failed in his goal. The best that can be said of him is of the 20th century's most famous failed painters he was the least destructive.
I know I missed the prime commenting time but: Can we talk about that last sentence at 10:24? How can ideas last forever when the context for which we engage with art is always changing? Don't ideas evolve as they are communicated from one to the next? So aren't ideas (and therefore conceptual art) as equally susceptible to the erosion of time as a painting or sculpture? And of two (chosen with extreme bias, admittedly) works of art: Felix Gonzalez-Torres' "untitled" billboard depicting two pillows on a bed done in 1991, and Michelangelo's David, finished in 1504, which piece has held it's original concept most in tact now that it is 2018?
Sorry to cherry-pick that one statement and try to build an existential crisis out of it, but I think the declaration is deserving of critique.
It's funny, Because often the defense for conceptual art is don't worry about the aesthetics or the immediate visceral experience you get in the gallery that may leave you cold...
For me it's almost always traditional art that leaves me completely cold. It's like okay good You can control a paintbrush well and replicate what you can see That's a nice skill but so what? When I enter the gallery space and I see something that takes me genuinely by surprise something that gives me an unexpected experience which makes me think and laugh and feel, it's never because of somebody's technical skills which I find basically boring and something anyone could learn if they just spent enough time at it. What really moves me is the ideas behind the thing. For example in opening of this video the picture of the chair the chair and the dictionary definition of the chair, as soon as I saw this work I immediately had an emotional reaction to it, a pleasurable emotional reaction - I immediately saw the contrasting of various levels of reality with regard to a chair and still no chair was there... That's far more interesting and emotionally moving to me than say a meticulously rendered portrait of a person looking inscrutable. That's just boring and I've seen it a thousand thousand times before and to be honest I wasn't that interested the first time.
I'm so pleased :) Talking about Kosuth's work in art history helped me to finally understand the concepts of conceptual art.
I've realised that while I was at Witkacy exhibition. I overheard an old woman, saying what she sees to a blind person and I heard him say "ooh this one is my favorite". It was one of the most beautiful things i've ever experienced.
Wtf , how? Is that even beautiful lol
@@Moodboard39 idk i think it's beautiful how people needd each other and care about each other
When you realize following the instructions of artists to make unique pieces of art in weekly assignments can be interpreted as one big piece or even many pieces of conceptual art........
;)
Something brought out is usually like a rug, you're usually up in arms over your own smoke.
Typical case of "if you give an artist context"
Particular about particularities. All humanities are important! Which is such a struggle for me personally to come to love them all, but I love the ventilation of it all. There's a couple of these I Wish to find myself in the presence of so as to find what I reflect upon in my own body of work.
Just discovered this channel on my journey. So now it's time to cycle off the mortality rate cuz. We're huffing and puffing over our own posts!
They say what they say! We'd know this if we were socially conceptual! There should be more to love than ventures lost in Space.
Don't be devoid of prison sentences. Play the game of life, push forth and be well-managed. The next commoner good should never be you and I.
Thanks for the inspiration to post!
This reads like you typed a word on your phone and just kept on using the suggested words lol
wa
@@GamingOSlol like like a bot...wonder how many bots writing on TH-cam ?
I just visited the deCordova in Lincoln, Massachusetts; it was amazing. I saw a LeWitt tower and Yayoi Kusama's "Where The Lights In My Heart Go", and many other extraordinary things.
Great video, I loved thinking about the aesthetics of communities outside of the western tradition during this video, particularly the aesthetic philosophies of nomadic communities that focus the ephemeral, the idea, or body decoration. It highlights for me how these conceptual artists try to change our aesthetic understanding of the world and not just the art world. Thank you
I made a conceptual art piece for a final project exam. It got me a very high grade and even an award and I don't even know why. This video sorta helped me understand it more though.
It's because people are too afraid to admit they don't get it. Most people probably saw your concept art and thought it was shit and had no intriguing meaning, but then again no one wants to say it, cause then you will be accused of 'just not understanding it'
Imo this is the main reason artists like pollock, duchamp, even picasso are held on such a high pedestal
@@leuse5614 haha , that could be . I don't understand none of their art . Probably ugly as fuck ,but pussy.to say it and don't get it not to offend
You totally made the case for conceptual art. Thank you!
While conceptual art may have its place (great video, by the way), any enterprising bloke with a vivid imagination, a knack for salesmanship, and a gift of gab can convince a connoisseur that a banana duct-taped on a canvas is meaningful enough to be worth gobs of money.
And therein lies the problem with conceptual art: it only becomes valuable to the art establishment when it is declared as such by a curator, and displayed in an area that said establishment determines to be able to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary. A toilet only becomes ART when it is displayed in a gallery. Take the same toilet outside, then it magically transforms back into a poop bin.
Then you have the sidewalk artist who makes impressive wire sculptures, or paints dreamy landscapes with coffee. To the ordinary folk, that's art, even if it's on the sidewalk, but it's mostly ignored by the art establishment because it's not in galleries, and don't have exhibit titles such as "Prognostications of Ennui," whatever that means.
Has The Art Assignment ever talked about the "art market?"
This is why many craftmanship artist hates "conceptual artist" and their bollocks of art galleries managers/curators.
But look, the museum attendance of these conceptual art get lower and lower each day...
That's the point of a lot of art. Criticizing the art establishment.
@@nfspbarrister5681I see ...
Interesting input
I personally feel like one of the biggest factors in art is originality, which kinda ties into creativity , big components in conceptual art and art in general imo
People say "anyone can do that!" So Anyone--please do it! ( Even this could be the basis as a conceptual-text piece.) Also I think lots of pop music is conceptual because music arises from ideas about sound organization and how it is shaped into cultural objects through memesis, or whatever causes it to be popular, and not solely on talent or technique.
One of the stupidest things I've ever read in my entire life !
@@psyche1988 ok?
Beautiful thanks now I understand better what is this kind of art xxx
Elisa. Be careful you don't get gaslighted by these pseudo-intellectuals.
Thank you for this. I have always disliked much contemporary art, but this has taught me to appreciate it like I do genres of music that I don't like. Speaking of music: THIS IS SO MUCH LIKE SHEET MUSIC!!!
I applaud you for making me excited about a movement of contemporary art: It's like poetry! :D
"It may now be said that that an object becomes, or fails to become, a work of art in direct response to the inclination of the perceiver to assume an appreciative role. As Morse Peckham has put it, '...art is not a category of perceptual fields but of role-playing.'"
That quote from Victor Burgin was the epiphany for me. Cuts to the core of the insecurity that says, when looking at conceptual art "but is this the Emperor's New Clothes, though? Is someone laughing at me? Am I being fooled?" The truth is of course that it doesn't matter. In that moment there is the work, and there is you, and from then on it is on you. It's liberating, and very 1960s.
I love this show! So informative and interesting :)
I would have argued that the chair exhibit is a representation of the semiotic triangle. The chair itself is the object in the world, the photograph is the representation in the mind and the definition of the word 'chair' is the meaning of the concept.
it's giving... it's giving chair
You may not know it, but I'm currently doing a performance art and a conceptual art piece right at this moment. I title it: "Procrastination". This is truly an everyperson sort of art. In fact, I'd wager that a good number of people are already masters of this ancient art.
What a perfect time for you to upload this! I had just finished binging all the other "The Case for" videos just right now
So true, sculptures do crumble, paint does fade. But ideas do NOT live forever... they're forgotten.
The problem with this video is, when making the case for conceptual art, it's not enough to argue that it's art, but whether it's valid art. Is it worthwhile? Does it satisfy any need, social or otherwise? So it doesn't matter if Kosuth called his chair art, or if anyone else does. It doesn't matter if it was anti-materialistic, anti-establishment, activist, political, trendy, or simply pretentious. What matters is, is it worth looking at and contemplating? Is it worth my time?
This then begs the question, what makes any art worthwhile? Well, here's a list of things art has done over millennia:
1. Support a social hierarchy/institution
2. Give pleasure
3. To establish an identity, personal or social
4. To document history
5. To see through someone else's eyes
6. To criticize society
7. To ask big questions
In terms of conceptual art, where do these roles come into play? It's not a question you can answer across the board, but you need to consider it for each individual work. Kosuth's chair certainly helps establish his identity as an intellectual (or wannabe), but does it ask any big questions? Does it criticize society? If so, it's not by the definition to the right nor the photo on the left. We know which is the most "chair" - the physical one you can sit on. That's true regardless whether or not anyone sits in it. So, does that fact make a point about the larger world? Were people in the 60's confusing symbols and verbiage with real truth? Was he saying, if we can't agree on what a real chair is, then how can we agree on anything else? It could be worth looking up, but then again, if the work itself doesn't offer enough clues to explain itself, is it really a success? To what extent should an artwork be a puzzle? If you, as an artist, have something to say, shouldn't you just say it? What if Kosuth used a more traditional approach to making the same statement? Norman Rockwell made incredibly powerful artworks criticizing society, without resorting to puzzle-making.
I'm not saying all conceptual work is valid nor invalid, but that historical context, definitions, and a few statements of support from whatever talking heads is not enough to build a case. There are deeper questions that need to be addressed.
Reporter: "Why do you just make copies of things over and over? Why don't you make anything original?"
Warhol: "Uh, because it's easier."
It's art because I say it's art. Sorry about your PhD.
@L. ka Yeah. We humans tend to look at things we can't understand and dismiss it as if they have no meaning and no value because we can't understand it .
I suppose that this video was intended to make the case for conceptual art in general, rather than for any specific piece. The questions you have are good ones.
Hear2. This is why i often disliked many conceptual exibitions.
They want us to think..and do things...but when we asked those things above..even the artist dismissed us just by saying "you dont get it". And they say it was "inclusive" art.
The hell!?
@RUSSIAN ROBOT True, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore all the questions I asked.
I don't know if the artist, Joseph Cosuth, was referencing this, but the presentation of his "One And Three Chairs" piece evoked for me Thoreau's "I have one chair for solitude, two chairs for company and three chairs for society" quote.
Ideas are great, and conceptual art based on great ideas is great.
The problem is, especially from outside, sometimes those ideas don't look that great to begin with. It's the millionth reiteration that "everything is art if you accept that it" really an idea worth praising? Sometime it doesn't feel like it...It doesn't help that we get exposed to so much mediocre art through our lives... And the general sensation is that if you think that art is not that great, you aren't allow to say it, cause it's conceptual, if you don't like it, it's cause you don't get it.
And this adds up with the idea artists aren't supposed to ever explain themselves.
I like museum, I never really studied art, but I like the sensation there is something to understand and analyse, something someone wanted me to understand, or even the idea that the something do understand wasn't really there, and the artist wanted me and they to find it in the mix that is the dialectic between us.
But there need to be honesty involved, and sometime, it really doesn't look like there is any kind of good ideas behind it, and you are not allow to said that you don't think that is based on good ideas, or the result of an interesting process or career, and maybe you would like to get some kind of hint, or explanation, and it's not there cause artists are not supposed to explain their art, and it's frustrating and keeping people away from art, cause it makes everything look like they are only there to strike their ego.
It surely isn't helping me going more to museum.
That is precisely the reason why Classical art museum is seeing a surge in attendance while modern art museum is seeing a decline.
Ideas are great but they are not art. Art starts when rationality is put to sleep.
waterglass21 that is your personal opinion. You are free to think that, but I doubt any serious art critic or even relevant artist will agree with you on that.
@@lucainvernizzi9715 art critic?? You follow what art critics think? Basically constructivist ideologists without psychological validation
waterglass21 honestly, the absurdity of a TH-cam commentator spitting romantic pseudo bullshit and belittling people who actually work with art for a living is too much for me.
Enjoy your art however you like it, and leave me out of it.
Have a nice day
Really love this video. Makes me wish concept art were called procedural art. Makes me understand it better
Joseph Kosuths art will always be chairished
🤣👍🏼
I hated...HATED... the "The Comedienne", by Catallan, because of it's inflated cost. But after watching this video, I now appreciate the concept behind it. Heck I now appreciate concept art in general.
There are so many great quotes (and humorous phrases!) I almost want to quote the whole thing! Thank you so much for making this and bringing to light how conceptual art is about engaging with context, the myriad of our senses, and our sensibilities, and that it doesn't seem like (traditional) art since, in many ways, that was its purpose, to stretch our understanding (of art and of our experience and our inner thoughts). And I love conceptual art for just that, even in those times when my gut reaction is to automatically think "what the actual..." :P Powerful episode!
Oliver. Psuedo-intellectual nonsense.
This video was so good I didn't know what to do with myself for 30 minutes straight
Its a phenomenom called brainwashing
I kinda dig the chair piece.
The way we learned it in my class, was that it represented different levels of realness. The picture, the object, the idea - which is most real? My teacher argued that the idea is most real, because the idea of chair can be any chair. The object can only be one chair, and in a museum doesn't function as a chair anymore. The photo is least real, but the one that would normally be displayed in a museum. Just food for thought.
"You're in a museum"
I am not. Checkmate.
Thank you for this. It cemented in my mind something I didn't really realize - I LOVE conceptual art! I get EXCITED by some conceptual pieces - like several of the ones you showed in this video - in a way that I haven't often been with other types.
I think you are very sad
@@evanreader6551 Betty Bho is correct, it's sad when someone like Adel Wolf is gaslighted into loving conceptual art.
This makes me so happy. Purely happy.
yay new "the case of!"
Thanks again. Always interesting, always intriguing, and always respectful of different positions. Really love the Art Assignment (and said so in the survey!).
These are some of my favorite videos on TH-cam. Also leave some of you favorite artist it the comments.
Not a conceptual artist, but one of my all time favorites is Gordon Matta-Clark.
@@theartassignment Gordon Matta-Clark? You must be joking. Holey crap.
My first thought was:"it's not a band.It's an idea" (props to you if you get the reference).Seriously though after watching art assignment videos I feel truly educated.Thank you for doing this!!
Before you consider if each one is "art", you must ask before: "what the heck is art".
And if you a bit trickster you should probably have asked yourself why the need to define these as art.
This was wonderful and thought provoking. Thank you.
Great! But also, Why do we call this 7:48 Art not just Documentation ?
Nice, Victor Burgin did a lecture when I was at art school :) He showed a piece about a virtual coffee shop.
I disagree strongly about conceptual art being the slippery art that avoids ownership. I adore this series and understand that it is a choice to become a perceived, but I wanted to share Avelina Lesper with y’all. She’s a Mexican art critic who has a very good case against conceptual art based precisely on how it’s a money making machine and a money making “agreement” between the elites, the artists who don’t invest time, and the galleries. I think Joseph campbell would also disagree with this case, especially because he thought that artist ought to be the makers of mythology in our time, the makers of a metaphorical entry to the unconscious or invisible. Personally, I find it ineffective and at times a bit insulting that when the viewer says “don’t get it, don’t like it” they are now confronted with “you’re not open enough” instead of an “I guess I didn’t do my job”. In any case it seems to me like conceptual artists aspired to be philosophers that skipped the whole writing process, and graphic philosophy is still philosophy! Much much love to your team, I love his channel and I always learn something new
Ahhh yes, Avelina L. As a Mexican myself I’m profoundly against her. I think what needs to be said here is that she does actually value art from a skill-aesthetic-traditional viewpoint, and that’s why she attacks conceptual within the art market. The art market itself is a whole other thing that needs to be observed on its own because the intrinsic question that Avelina never asks: is it ok for a traditional painting piece to be valued at the same overblown prices as conceptual pieces? To my understanding, she would (since I have not seen her actually do so) defend a really really high price for a “classic” painting over a conceptual piece. More than a conspiracy of rich people and galleries, we should be asking why does it hurt that conceptual pieces can arise to seemingly stupid prices and no hurt is felt when the same prices are tagged to traditional pieces?
I think Joseph Campbell’s idea is as valid as any conceptual artist’s one in the sense that those are their thoughts about art and none is an absolute truth about it.
You are pretty right about the point of someone claiming that someone that does not get it is not open enough. No one should be judged like that instantly. But let’s remember that this should also go the other way around. No one should claim “this is not art and its bullshit” and have (I’m including myself here) the humbleness to say “I do not get it” or “I prefer something else”.
About your last point, you are absolutely correct…without the negative connotations. Conceptual art, for the most part, is a form of philosophical experience and I think this is key to its understanding. Why would philosophers only restrain themselves to pen and paper? Is philosophy something that only belongs in a book? I do agree that graphic philosophy is still philosophy but expanding the experience can be something really positive for philosophy itself.
If you think about it you now have 2 different forms of initial art experiences, one that starts from the aesthetic-retinal-skillful way, and another that starts by confronting something that generates thought in a similar way that a book does but it’s not literature. Do they need to be against each other? The answer, of course, is no.
Chuy Oz Chuy Oz I’m Mexican too fam, I appreciate your comment. At the end of the day I can appreciate conceptual art as a concept but as art... they gotta work harder than premade. Joseph Campbell is a philosopher and writer who I agree with often and I look for that element in art, to create what wasn’t there before. Some conceptual pieces are based on putting a phrase like “a word and an object which that word describes are not the same thing” into an unintelligible abstract used to belittle people who are not willing to accept that as an artistic experience and to fuel the intellectual elitism of those who want things that are very easily made and reproduce to be worth a ton. So idk! There’s gotta be some exceptions but in general.. that’s how I feel. (Also one of avelina‘s fav contemporary artists I would not describe as traditionally skillful in the slightest aaa I forget the name I’ll get back to you)
This is a very good and important point! It is hard to deny that the art market has found a way to institutionalize and cash in on conceptual art. I feel strongly that conceptual art is dead in a post-Cambridge Analytica 2018. The strategies of the early conceptual artists were incisive then - especially while curators and board members tried to figure out how to archive and commodify it - but as is expected, they have been defanged now. I do think that history is sometimes just a battle of ideas and culture, a marketplace of ideas. Conceptual art was ahead of the art world for a second but now it's ben tamed and put squarely in that money making machine in the marketplace. If anything, the trollish and irreverent nature of conceptual art has just migrated to the infinite internet communities.
potbotra; I agree with the gist of what you are saying here. The Conceptual Art movement (1967-1972) was powerful at undermining the art institutions and art market for a short time…. before eventually being gobbled up. It was during this time that Clement Greenberg's Modernism, that had been the mainstream art was finally overthrown. I think it is important to differentiate the Conceptual Art movement from contemporary art or 'conceptual art' that is now being globalised!
Divertissement Monas of course! I don’t think any of us think that contemporary art should be criticized just because it is contemporary. I place contemporary and conceptual art in very different classifications
Best video I've seen on youtube! Thank you very much!
"Do we... stop?" "I don't..., I don't know. I mean, they're not orange cones. They're just... boots." "What kind of crazy person carries around so many boots? And why put them in the road? It's an obstruction to traffic is what it is. Something ought to be done."
Menarik mendengarkan penjelasan tentang konseptual art. Konseprual art adalah salah satu seni yg berbeda saja, seperti juga kelahiran berbagai gaya seni sebelumnya. Semua memiliki komunitas dan pecintanya sendiri.
i love conceptual art so much! ;0;
oh you are so deep
i really enjoyed this. art is an idea that transcends time & ownership
Thats bullshit, art is how you express an idea through an artistic form; but not the idea in itself.
Hello,
if anyone else would like to cuss out strangers online please be informed that whatever is randomly stated on a youtube comment is neither a dictionary definition set in stone nor a summary from a full thesis. do you think art is shit? sure why not. do you think art is a movement of self expression? ok then. do you think art is only validated as Real Art if they are presented in a gallery? whatever you say boss. anyone who would like to add what they think is Art Is is welcome to do so by filling in the following blanks:
Art is _______________________.
And remember, if you think that you are entitled to start throwing negative energy on the internet, I would highly suggest you consider getting some vitamin E & having some fun with friends.
Thank you.
My first thought was, "I genuinely prefer the three chairs." :-)
Although Magritte _Ceci n'est pas une pipe_ , Plato and his ideals, and a few others (Wittgenstein(?)), might already have made the same point.
Of course you prefer the three chairs. I do, too! Oh, and sure, MAYBE others have made similar points as well ;).
Can you explain?
@@zacozacoify There's the actual chair (the physical object), a representation of a chair (the photograph) and the dictionary definition (the description) of a chair...All three are chairs.
@@psyche1988 Yours is an example of someone being gaslighted.
Great, vids super fun, I really appreciate your work and am so grateful for the visual conversation you foster.
Super interesting video. Conceptual art seems to be so underappreciated outside specific circles and it's a massive shame. I can appreciate the skill and significance behind traditional forms of art but find that the reward is greater when one finds meaning in a conceptual work. It takes processing and sometimes background knowledge to make the most of so, to me at least, is a much more compelling way of putting a message across than a pretty (or not to pretty) picture.
Eh?
Can't those "conceptual artist" just take "conceptual reward" instead? ;p
@@nfspbarrister5681 Like Tracey Emin being paid in condoms and Damien Hirst being paid in butcher's meat.
Has anyone noticed that Art Assignment only reponds to comments of praise? And if you butter up Art Assignment enough the you get rewarded with a little red heart.
@@spellbound111typical . They like positive not negative lol it shows who they are
This was a fantastic lesson.
I loved it.
I wonder how conceptual art works in the context of intellectual property laws, as ideas and concepts per se cannot be protected/copyrighted.
Thank you so much for this. Duchamp is my hero
Duchamp is the ultimate clown. And of course he wasnt an artist but a troll to the art stablishment.