The way Johanna Drucker describes Conceptual art makes it sound very intriguing. What may appear to be just a canvas with words has a deeper meaning and idea behind it. Conceptual art tries to capture its audience more in a philosophical way than a physical way.
I was slightly confused by Drucker's comments on art and the mass media. From her tone, I feel like she does not approve of fine art's "vaunted convergence with mass culture", but she is satisfied that fine art is able to "preserve its identity and influence" (Drucker 252). She explains more about the relationship between Conceptual art and mass culture by illustrating that at the base of Conceptual art there is "a desire to distinguish art from mainstream media and industry and to rely upon conceptual premises, rather than elements of production, to do so" (253). Drucker is trying to say that unlike the media, art does not need to put on an extravagant show or display to prove its point and gather attention because that is not what Conceptual art is about. Conceptual art can hit at a controversial subject and say something more powerful in a few wards with a blank background.
Drucker, however, does not believe that language alone is enough to convey ideas. Words attached to a visual display like that of Mel Bochner's Language Is Not Transparent can enhance the idea. By combining the forces of appearance and words, I think it is the best way of making a point and allowing the viewer to connect to the concept. It reminds me of how we briefly looked at Barbara Kruger because her photographs truly use Conceptual art. She forms cultural views without having to say much.
A photo I find noteworthy is by Robert Frank and is titled "Sick of Goodby's." I came across it randomly, but it stood out because it is so dark and twisted. The imagery combined with the font of the words is harsh; they reflect how the author feels when it comes to losing those who are close to him.
I definitely agree with you that Drucker shows Conceptual Art as more philosophical than physical, it is rather a message than a pretty picture, but she is also able to say that the physical parts it is made out of matter and contribute to that message.
ReplyDeleteI love the picture you picked out. It shows beautifully how the plain canvas and some paint can send a deep and dark message. It is wicked how the dripping paint helps portray the emotion of perhaps sadness, regret, etc. Art doesn't have to be precise and use printed block letters. As is seen in your picture the messiness and imperfection of it acts as a double in helping create a specific feeling and message to the viewer.
I do agree with you that words, combined with art, can convey a stronger message. However, I do think that art can stand alone without words and vice versa while still being able to send a strong message. I suppose that all boils down to one's opinion and preferences though.
ReplyDeleteI was also confused by Drucker's comments on the media and its effect on fine art. I know at one point she says something about how the quantity - not quality - of the media has influenced fine art, implying that there is a lack of quality in the media. I wish she would have expanded on this more, as the media has played such a prolific role in Western culture since the birth of conceptual art in the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and KevinK. Times are changing, the way society works is changing, therefore the style of art is also changing to portray the way society looks to the artist. And if it means that society is going down the drain, well then, the word "Society" with "blood" dripping from them could mean just that. Or even "Society" written on a black background could mean the same thing. It all depends on one's opinion like Kevin said.
ReplyDeleteI may be completely off with this thought, but I interpreted Drucker's criticisms on the relationship between fine art, and Conceptual art and the media as a way to show that the emergence of Conceptual art resisted the media's approach to interpreting it as it had always done with fine art. A Conceptual artist has the full-on advantage of presenting his/her art, boldly stating what it is and what it means. Everybody can do all the criticizing and interpreting that they want; the point is that the artist already told everyone what s/he wanted to say. My point is that Conceptual art, being about the idea at hand, is not dubious in nature, while fine art and other art forms can.
ReplyDeleteI was also confused on Druker's view of mass media. If she disliked it, why did she portray it in her artwork? Perhaps it was to evoke thought on the current societal systems affecting the people, thus affecting the arts. Overall, her concept was very convoluted and complex, but still intriguing.
ReplyDelete