Drucker Response

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.

Drucker: The Crux of Conceptualism - PK

I know you warned us about this reading, but it was pretty lengthy and quite hard to grasp since we have no background and no information on the subject. 

Having said that, the article discussed interesting ideas. I think what grabbed my attention most was her discussion of words and the medium with which they are inscribed. Drucker says: “language, inscribed language that is, has material qualities which contribute to its meaning” (258). That is something I have never thought about, but it seems so obvious at the same time. She mentioned Mel Bochner using chalk to send her message, which would have been different if she had used paint or anything else. The medium with which the art is created is so important and creates a different feeling within the viewer. If, for example I were to inscribe the words “love is everywhere” with paint on a wall, it might make people feel warm and positive and accepting, but if I used spray paint and made a graffiti of the same words people might feel negative towards me and the message, because of preconceived notions of who I am as a person and what kind of a message I am trying to send. Of course, there are a lot of things that affect how we view the message the artist was sending, like our past experiences, education, status and beliefs, but what the author is trying to show is that the material with which the art is created is very overlooked, but very important to creating a message. The material and how it appears appeals to our senses and creates feelings within us that we use for understanding the artist’s message as we see fit in our lives. This idea being overlooked by many artists as relevant could be one of the cruxes Drucker wants to put in the limelight.  

Paulina Kijek