I want to begin by admitting that the whole idea of Conceptualism is very foreign to me. Even after reading Drucker’s piece I am still hazy about the concept. Drucker defined her arguments in the beginning of her piece and immediately transition into providing support, much of it being overwhelming. However, when she began referencing Mel Bochner she grabbed my attention.
In a 1970 piece by Mel Bochner, he inscribed the sentence “Language is Not Transparent” on white chalk on a black, dripping ground (258). Drucker argues that with this Bochner brings forth an aspect that many Conceptual artists overlook or seek to deny, inscribed language contains material attributes which contribute to its meaning. The choices that Bochner made when creating his piece affect the meaning more than what was actually written. This idea opposes that of the analytic philosopher Kosuth who believes that the inscribed linguistics alone bring about the meaning of the piece. In this debate, I would have to take the side of Bochner is portraying. Drucker argues, “Bochner calls attention to the distinction between planes of discourse and reference as they are configured to the structural analysis of language,” which he does by relying on the plane to be the visual image when conveying the meaning of the sentence. I found this interesting because I assumed no matter what the piece Conceptualist, Modernist, Cubist, or any other form everything in the piece was accounted for to convey some sort of meaning. As I mentioned before, the concept of Conceptualism still remains somewhat hazy and has left me with some questions so I apologize if this may seem unclear.
-Ashton Beck
-Ashton Beck
I too really enjoyed the part of the reading that focuses on Bochner's "Language is not Transparent." I think what Bochner is trying to say, very ironically and standoffishly almost, is that language contributes to the visuality of an image as well as the meaning. Kosuth attempts to say in his philosophy that language is the most precise way of creating and interpreting meaning. What he neglects to think about, however, is that language (when written) has a material nature that in turn creates BOTH a visual and linguistic experience. Just as the language compliments the visual art it accompanies, many times it is melded within the piece so much that it becomes the visual art itself.
ReplyDeleteDrucker's argument about language not being transparent and her supporting points also were the most interesting to me and made the most sense. It helped me open my eyes and see the "habit" that we have of just reading text and never realizer the possibility for a deeper meaning, especially when this text is used in art pieces.
ReplyDelete