Despite its lengthy and difficult composition, Drucker's article makes several excellent points about Conceptual art that I found myself highlighting and starring like crazy. After skimming through my notes and comments, there was one sentence in particular that stood out to me the most in her writing:
"Conceptual art is recognized to be a key initiator in the dialogue between visual art and visual culture" (252).
I really like the way Drucker acknowledges a sort of "delicate balance" between the visual aspect of a piece of art and the cultural ramifications that influence the viewers ability to understand it. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with her, even taking her sentence a step further by admitting that the viewer is active in both the cultural and physical visuality of the piece from the moment they inspect it. Their interpretation further complicates the dialogue, and this conversation between art, its make-up (visual and linguistic aspects), and the viewer is what makes art indestructible and complex.
I also really enjoyed reading about "art as idea as idea." Although I completely disagree with Kosuth's statements claiming that language is "the most precise way" of stating ideas, I'm captivated by his philosophy. I think Drucker properly uses some of his ideas to support what she wants to say, without completely agreeing with him. Despite the systemic nature of language, the visual aspect of art remains significant always, or as she says: "Visual perception certainly, although highly coded in cultural and historical terms, need not pass through linguistic representation to be processed."
In comparison to the other readings for this week, I love the way Drucker delves deep into the beginning stages of a piece of conceptual art, centralizing her points on the "proposition vs. conception" of a piece, and the nature of its idea. This is what partly makes her work so difficult to understand, but also keeps you reading until the very last page.
Chloe Stagaman
"Conceptual art is recognized to be a key initiator in the dialogue between visual art and visual culture" (252).
I really like the way Drucker acknowledges a sort of "delicate balance" between the visual aspect of a piece of art and the cultural ramifications that influence the viewers ability to understand it. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with her, even taking her sentence a step further by admitting that the viewer is active in both the cultural and physical visuality of the piece from the moment they inspect it. Their interpretation further complicates the dialogue, and this conversation between art, its make-up (visual and linguistic aspects), and the viewer is what makes art indestructible and complex.
I also really enjoyed reading about "art as idea as idea." Although I completely disagree with Kosuth's statements claiming that language is "the most precise way" of stating ideas, I'm captivated by his philosophy. I think Drucker properly uses some of his ideas to support what she wants to say, without completely agreeing with him. Despite the systemic nature of language, the visual aspect of art remains significant always, or as she says: "Visual perception certainly, although highly coded in cultural and historical terms, need not pass through linguistic representation to be processed."
In comparison to the other readings for this week, I love the way Drucker delves deep into the beginning stages of a piece of conceptual art, centralizing her points on the "proposition vs. conception" of a piece, and the nature of its idea. This is what partly makes her work so difficult to understand, but also keeps you reading until the very last page.
Chloe Stagaman
I, too, appreciate that Drucker didn't completely agree with Kosuth's philosophy. It shows that she has thought about HER opinion and position on the matter and she isn't just taking someone else's thoughts and accepting them as hers. Her argument in this case is very well thought out, and she takes what she believes to be true.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I enjoyed "art as idea as idea." It's such a complicated concept, at least at first, but once you grasp it, it really comes to life. This way of looking at conceptual art created depth. It shows that it's not just what's on the outside that matters, but that art has more to say than just what's actually written.
I don't think many people realize this. People tend to be okay with just liking art for its superficial value, not its actual worth; it's easier that way.
I like how you mention that the viewer judges instantly upon the art at first glance. From what I'm getting, the viewers ultimately decide on the logistics of the art. So the art is dependent on the opinions of the majority of the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe quote about Conceptual Art being a key initiator in a dialog between visual art and culture also caught my attention. Everyone's dialog will be different, considering their cultural experiences, and as one experiences more within their culture, the different the art will be (if they consider laying out their thoughts onto a canvas).
ReplyDelete