I have always understood conceptual art to be art that makes the viewer think. That is, the literal image or installation is not nearly as important and the idea that that image invokes in conceptual art. The reason why conceptual art is so interesting to many people is that it allows the viewer to create his or her own meaning by associating personal bias and prior experience to the artist’s piece. For example, with Kosuth’s One and Three Chairs, which Drucker mentions in this reading, one would not expect the viewer to be mesmerized by the beauty and pathos of the image of a chair next to a physical chair and a written dictionary definition. Rather, one would be intrigued by the idea that this conveys. Is Kosuth trying to show that the same object is understood differently through different mediums? Is he implying that one way of viewing a given object is truer than the others? It has been to my understanding that conceptual art allows for the freedom of interpretation by the audience.
I do not think that Drucker necessarily agrees with this definition of conceptual art. She implies that conceptual art is not necessarily free or up for broad interpretation. Instead, it represents the idea that a theory could be expressed in a physical and quantifiable way. To Drucker, One and Three Chairs is not the semi-abstract piece that I believed it to be – it is a manufactured idea. She explains this in her thesis by saying that the conceptual art’s strong distinction between idea and physical installation creates “idea of idea (251).” That is, conceptual art is not about the artist letting the viewer create his or her own meaning, but rather the artist creating a specific idea and displaying it to the viewer.
I see how it seems more important to Drucker that the author's idea is being portrayed. It makes me wonder with any art form if the author's main idea is the most important or could someone's new idea of what it is be better? With Kosuth's photograph, I see it as conveying that both of these objects are chairs (well, obviously). But, when people imagine an image of a chair in their head, everyone thinks of something different. That does not mean that somebody is wrong because their image of a chair does not match yours.
ReplyDeleteSo, essentially, ideas are unique. Everyone has a different perception.
I agree that every artist creates art that expresses the idea they wish it to, to them. However, I feel that Drucker stresses that art has been able to survive mass media and society because of art's universality and diversity. That is, one piece of art can inspire countless ideas from countless people.
ReplyDeleteYour post has cleared a few things up for me. I would have to agree with you initial idea of conceptual art. I feel as though it is more interesting for the artist to leave the interpretation up to the viewers because a viewer might see something that the artist might have never thought of. I feel like constraining the audience to figure out the single idea portrayed by the artist, as Drucker argues is what should take place in the Conceptual art, takes away from the piece being considered art. I feel as though art should not have concrete ideas that is what the sciences and technologies are for.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you in you analysis that,"the reason conceptual art is interesting to many people is that it allows the viewer to create his or her own meaning by associating personal bias and prior experience to the artist’s piece." Whether that bias is evoking thought or seeing a political or societal message, conceptual art intrigues a great deal of people, including me.
ReplyDeleteI was never really intrigued by conceptual art in the way that you and some of the other commenters were. I thought pieces like the one you have included in your post were pointless and kind of thoughtless. However, like you, I have made the realization after completing this reason that they're quite the opposite. Of course the artist is trying to get across an idea. In this image, the idea that I believe the artist is trying to get across is that there are many different ways to describe a chair. No one way of describing it is more right, more real, than the rest. I agree that every person sees conceptual art, any art really, in their own way, and regardless of the "idea of an idea" that the artist is trying to get across, we are all going to form another "idea of an idea" that the artist is trying to get across. I hope that makes sense to ya'll.
ReplyDelete