Response to Johanna Drucker's "The Crux of Conceptualism"

I should begin by admitting that I know very little about the context revolving around the rise of Conceptualism, and for that, I found myself lost at times as I read through this detailed and tedious article.  And so, if the following statements seem choppy or incomplete, I apologize.  :)  Although I am a bit unconfident in my reflections on Drucker’s article, I think I picked up some very valuable ideas that helped me understand an art movement that I had only heard in passing beforehand.


Conceptualism is not necessarily fine art's enemy, but it certainly challenges the power that fine art once held and maintained with overwhelming power in preceding centuries, as Drucker states.  And I think that is a boundary which no other artist seemed to cross, despite the many forms and movements that shifted and transformed the reality of art.  What other art form physically presents the ideas behind a piece to the audience than Conceptual art?  Perhaps words and language are so central to Conceptual art for this very reason, that it is the idea that is the main purpose of exhibiting the art.  It is not necessarily left up to the audience to decide what ideas lay behind the work(s) of art (although I still hold to be true art in any form is subjective in nature).  The artist, in contrast to artists of fine, Classical, or even Modernist art pieces impose his/her ideas to the audience in spite of outside perceptions and responses to the pieces.


Some terms I have yet to fully understand in discussing Conceptualism include: dematerialization, information paradigm, and production.  If I fully understood these terms in the correct context, I might be able to go back to Drucker’s article and grasp it more fully.

I found this image through a Google search.  I do not know who the artist is, but here is the link from which I found it: http://aagaardds.deviantart.com/art/Conceptual-Art-140394021.

I found the above piece to be humorous and ironic, but these are rather obvious qualities about the piece.  I think it also brings up an interesting question: is there a true and absolute way to define Conceptual art, needless to say other art forms from different movements?  And even if there is, is the artist at liberty to challenge the boundaries of the art form and change it?


~ Gina Marroquin