The world is constantly being renovated and refurbished with new-found technology that not only makes the lives of people easier, ie. cell phones with Internet, or making the world a small place to live in with webcams and Skype, but this technological world is now changing the way people view Fine Art. That is what I at least understood from Drucker's article. She says that "conceptual art shifted the foundation of the value of an art object from production to conception" and that the "trend" for artists in the late 20th, and early 21st century, is to now "[raise] the issue of the idea of idea within Conceptual art" by using words as a production of art (Drucker 251). Drucker does a great job arguing these points as someone from "our" generation, which is the generation full of technology. She's trying to show the "older generation" that allowing these new ways of living, and these new ways of creating art, are all part of the evolution of culture, and that it's ok.
People are still able to make educated judgments about the art, people are still able to ponder about the meaning, but the only difference is, is that there are actual words in the work of art. With those words, you can try to figure out the real meaning behind them, or you can create your own explanation. Drucker counteracts Kosuth's idea about how language is the "mode of representation most capable of stating ideas precisely" by arguing that Kosuth fails to see the "vast gap" between Kosuth's definition of logical language and the "complexity of cultural practices and artifacts of communication" (Drucker 256).
Just as the world turns on its axis, the theories, values, ideas, and ways of life change. Therefore, in the 21st century, the way we speak to an audience has changed, and we now used a digital camera to tell a story. Even with the use of technology to make art, even if the work of art is like Mel Bochner's "Language is Not Transparent" photo, people are still be able to use their imagination to understand the art however they desire. This is the new "trend" in today's society. That's what I feel like Drucker is trying to portray with this article.
I like that you brought up the quote of production and conception. I think that Conceptual Art is marked by an idea being conceived and then born, per say, onto a canvas or other medium. I think that other art styles can be said to conceived as an idea as well, but Conceptual Art definitely more so. Because I believe Conceptual Art is THE IDEA, it seems much more fitting for it to be conceived, whereas AN IDEA of other types of art are instead being produced into a painting, etc.
ReplyDeleteHope this makes sense!
I share a lot of the same thoughts you had in reading Drucker's article, and I wanted to comment on that, but my blog would've gone on forever.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that you point out that as the world changes, art changes. And I thought, as I read Drucker's article, that fine art may not have reflected the real world like the new movement of Conceptualism did -- it reminds me very much of the movement of Modernism in the years during and after WWI, Classical art did NOT depict the world in which people lived. Also, there began a cultural shift in how people thought and expressed what they thought and felt in the 1960s (i.e., civil rights and Vietnam), and that truly alludes to the styles shown in Conceptual art.
I really like your analysis on the current effects technology has on fine art. Technology has certainly changed the art world (and the world in general for that matter) and I am very curious to see how it evolves overall.
ReplyDelete