Talk:Conceptual art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Anti Conceptual art links

Two links to anti conceptual art sites were deleted. These are relevant in an examination of conceptual art, particularly as anti conceptual art is also included in the article, so I have reinstated them. Any discussion on this can be held here.

Tyrenius 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a real problem to be addressed in the way Emin and Hirst, and the backlash against YBA, feature so strongly at the end of this article. While the "Anti-Conceptual" section might have a place somewhere in this story, as it stands the comments and actions mentioned so far refer only to the backlash against YBA and those artists the Stuckists have deemed "conceptual", while the article itself sets out a definition of Conceptual art and criteria by which these very artists should be excluded (along with their detractors, by extension). This is clear because, a) the article identifies Conceptual art with a consistently negative or indifferent attitude to the art object, whereas it is the very materiality, the choice of object, of Hirst's, and particularly Emin's, art that, I would argue, so offends the sensibility of their critics, and, b) the article points to the central place that collaboration, discussion and social engagement held in the work of the Conceptual artists, whereas the YBA bonded over their dislike of theory and the over-intellectualisation of art, and thus their work is usually inward-looking and personal in nature.

This is a difficult issue because the Conceptual tag seems to have stuck to YBA, for whatever reason (could be the fault of the Stuckists), and so, though I'm tempted to remove all reference to them, it will be seen as an omission by many readers. And yet their presence in the article confounds much that it (correctly) sets out. Kramer J 20:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've retitled the section to make its contents clearer and also tied in YBAs more clearly at the end of the main text. I trust this solves the problem. It's quite clear from the inclusion of Massow and Howells that the issue extends beyond the Stuckists. In fact, I think it could easily be an article in itself. Obviously the term conceptual art has evolved in its use and has meant different things at different times to different people. As long as verifiable sources are given, these different uses can be shown. Tyrenius 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a young British artist certainly much younger than Emin or Hurst, I have to say that I despise most conceptual art and view it as the domain of the establishment and those with no real talent. I not a stuckist either though and I believe it is misleading to suggest that anyone opposed to conceptual art is a stuckist. Rather the anticonceptual art movement is spawned by a wide variety of artists from different diciplines, some very innovative, who make all kinds of art but who feel oppressed by the domination of conceptualists in the art world (especially in the uK). In this respect I am glad that the anti conceptual art links have been left in as I believe that they are an important and relevant commentary on conceptual art and todays' art world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.12.211 (talk • contribs) .

The article makes it clear that opposition comes from different people. Please contribute any information you have, as long as it can be backed up from a verifiable source, such as a newspaper. If you don't know how to use the footnotes system on wiki just put the reference in brackets or on this page. It's easier to use wiki if you get a personal user name (simple and free). Tyrenius 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

sure - I wasn't refering to the article but responding to comments made in this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.254.115 (talk • contribs) .

Conceptual art was the first truly international avant-garde art movement, and perhaps the last of the great avant-gardes of the twentieth century; "Modernism's nervous breakdown", as Art & Language termed it. The anonymous editor who deleted the entire "Controversy in the UK" section is correct; the Turner Prize and UK public reaction to it is a parochial issue, a tabloid news media "beat up" that has become an annual ritual for the Murdoch press in the UK and its readership, irrelevant to the history and unfolding of the Conceptual art movement.

Unless legitimate counter-arguments by registered editors are lodged in this forum so that the issue may be seriously debated, I believe I have put enough arguments forward to support the deletion or removal (to another article?) of this section. Kramer J 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kramer's use of the adjectives "truly" and "great" is subjective and POV. Therefore, I don't have confidence in Kramer's judgment as to what is or isn't irrelevant.Lestrade 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Those words are rhetorical, much as your use of the POV tag in the context of a discussion forum outside of the main article is rhetorical. I'm not asking you to trust my judgement, but to evaluate my arguments and mount some valid counter-arguments of your own in defence of the section in question, if you think it should stay. One would be hard-pressed to consider your perception of bias in my style of argumentation a valid measure of the correctness of what I say. Some research might be required as well. Kramer J 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of arguments for deletion of controversy section:

the Turner Prize and UK public reaction to it is a parochial issue
  • The Turner Prize is internationally renowned, reported and commented on. It is not parochial.
  • It takes place in London, one of the most important and influential art centres in the world: again not parochial.
  • UK public reaction is a valid phenomenon to report. The UK is not usually seen as a provincial location. Public reaction is part of the story of an art movement.
a tabloid news media "beat up" that has become an annual ritual for the Murdoch press in the UK and its readership
  • This is an argument for inclusion, not exclusion. The fact that this has become established as a staple part of the media, means it must be included to give a fuller picture.
  • Your information is inaccurate. It is reported by all the "broadsheets", not just the Murdoch-owned ones. See 2005 prize:[1][2][3][4]
  • Even a cursory examination reveals this is global news, reported (2005 examples) in Australia [5][6], New Zealand [7], Canada[8], and the US[9].
irrelevant to the history and unfolding of the Conceptual art movement
  • Wikipedia covers all aspects of a subject to inform the reader from a NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy, along with VERIFY and NOR. I suggest a careful reading of them would be advantageous. The social context and public reaction is part of the history of an art movement, and needs to be covered, as it is, for example, in Impressionism.

The material is properly referenced, unlike most of the information in the article, which can therefore be removed, if any editor chooses to do so. I suggest it is more profitable to add to the article and reference it, rather than to battle for the removal of parts of it which properly belong. If any substantiation with references can be provided for the fact that public reaction to conceptual art is indeed "irrelevant to the history and unfolding" of it, then that statement can be included in the article, in addition to counter-views, but at the moment it remains pure POV.

Tyrenius 03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tyrenius for making some good points. However, I feel you misunderstand my arguments and that your attribution of POV is a little looose. All of my contributions are factual, NPOV and verifiable, and if I haven't verified something yet it is due to time constraints and not because I don't have references. My quibble with the section in question is precisely that it is the only POV section of the article. That's what is so disconcerting. If you're keen to leave it in, then I will indeed endeavour to add some balance, but I didn't want to have to go down that track. Up until that section, and the previous gratuitous Schopenhaur quote, the article is neutral, factual, and represents no bias (except for your latest addition, which is a matter I'll come to in a moment). And I have read the Wiki policies you've singled out, by the way.

I suggest you re-read this article that you cite [10]. Somehow you've summarised this whole article as:

The inception of the term in the 1960s referred to a narrow practice of idea-based art. Through its association with the Young British Artists and the Turner Prize during the 1990s, its popular usage, particularly in the UK, developed as as synonym for all contemporary art which did not practice the traditional skills of painting and sculpture.

The article actually says:

In the tabloid press in particular, ‘conceptual’ is used as a blanket term to describe any contemporary art, often in a derogatory fashion.

It also makes the point that the Turner prize is not a conceptual art prize, and that previous winners have had varied practices. Outside of the UK tabloid press, there is as yet no clear synonymity between "conceptual art" and contemporary art, so do we want to use this wiki to further legitimise the conflation of the two terms, particularly when the discourse from which the conflation derives is one of derision?

On the matter of POV, the characterisation of early conceptual art as "a narrow practice of idea-based art" can hardly be called a neutral description. It was the first wave of conceptual artists, after all, who blew art wide open, making it possible for artists like Hirst and Emin to even have a practice today. I wouldn't call what they were doing "narrow". Kramer J 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you misunderstand POV. The embargo applies only to wiki editors, namely that they should not themselves adopt a POV, but reflected the body of opinion and debate in the world accurately. Some of that opinion may be POV, but it is not our job to assess it on those terms, merely to reflect the fact that it exists, which this article does. To not give the reader that information would be a POV decision that we feel it is not suitable for some reason of our own, i.e. we would be censoring it. It exists. The article includes the fact that it exists. There is no editorial comment as to its worth or otherwise, which is the correct approach. Critics of the critcism can also be cited to show properly the nature of the debate, and maybe this should be done, i.e. Serota's Dimbleby Lecture, though even there he admitted the widespread nature of the opposition, while stating the need to spread enlightenment.
The association of conceptual art with non-traditional art practice, particularly involving found of adapted objects and new media, is by no means restricted to the UK, possibly because the UK exerts a wide influence, and art articles tend to be carried (as I have given refs for above) in other countries' media. You can't shut the stable door after the horse has bolted! I can't contemplate an anodyne article that pretends all is well in the world of conceptual art, when so much debate and contention is aroused in its name. Otherwise, the reader is going to be sorely let down by our researches. This is an encyclopedia, so should give a comprehensive view of the subject.
No, I haven't summarised the article in the way you've said. I have put the ref merely for the point "In the tabloid press in particular, ‘conceptual’ is used as a blanket term to describe any contemporary art", but please note that it specifies "in particular", as opposed to "exclusively", because it is used in the "broadsheet" (i.e. "quality") also, the difference being that the latter have dedicated art critics who are likely to be more discriminating in their terminology than the (more influential) news pages when these carry art stories. Again, if it's necessary to ref every single word, I'm sure I can do it, but, as you say, it's time. I think the ref validates the core point, but let's not get too heavy about refs or 90% of the article's going to get deleted. You might note that I have not chosen to include the word "derogatory" (but maybe I should to be more accurate to the original?).
The statement doesn't say the Turner Prize is a conceptual art prize. It says "through its association with", which is quite a different concept.
You could say that anything in wiki further legitimises something, in as much as it recognises that something exists, which is all that this article is doing. I find the "controversy" section is extremely restrained and merely states some bald facts. It is a small proportion of the whole and therefore not a distortion of the article. I might point out that I have also worked on the substance of the rest of the article to give it more strength and have exercised the same editorial judgement throughout. I don't see this section any differently. It all has to be viewed from a NPOV, rather as Christopher Isherwood's idea of "I am a camera". There is no more reason to leave out the controversy section, than there is to omit Leroy's criticism of Impressionism. This article needs to be about 3 times as long to do justice to the subject, and it would be far better to focus attention on including more material and organising it in a clear way that showed the development of the concept and its practitioners, as it is a fascinating story.
I accept your criticism of "a narrow practice" and my intention wasn't very well carried out. I meant it to be a compliment and a complement to the later usage of the term. I've changed it, but feel free to amend if you have a better phrasing. I would like to thank you for engaging in a robust dialogue, rather than an edit war, and I hope that we can go on (with our limited time) to enlarge and strengthen the article on that basis. I think an "antecedents" section would be extremely interesting where different evaluations of the concept in art (e.g. Schopenhauer) fed into the foundation of the movement, but that is probably beyond us at the moment.
Tyrenius 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted the "controversy" intro to remove what I regard as a tone of bias. It is not enough to simply report the existence of the backlash. By not adequately contextualising the use of the word "conceptual" as a term of derision in the UK and the origin of that usage in the tabloid media, you let the reader assume it is the consensus of scholarly opinion that "conceptual" is interchangeable with "contemporary" art. This is not the case. If colloquially the terms are interchangeable, then the fact it is a colloquial usage should be mentioned. Kramer J 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your clarification. In fact, I think this is an area that should be developed in the article to show the development of, and differences in, usage. It is important to an understanding of the genre. I trust "media" covers it, as it's not restricted to what is seen as the "tabloid" press, but used by the likes of Tom Stoppard, Sir Simon Rattle etc. and all mass media, including TV and radio. I have no wish for this to be a reflection on the academic use of the term, but I would like to see that use also defined. If there is a reference, then the difference could be highlighted in the controvery section to avert such misunderstanding. The "backlash" was also fuelled by the Turner Prize - it wasn't an innocent bystander. The whole media backlash was encouraged and exploited to the hilt by the YBAs and Saatchi, and the Tate have done nothing to discourage the publicity. Tyrenius 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All good and true, and I don't have problem with your edit. I think the article as a whole is the better for this productive debate. Kramer J 04:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The history needs to be five times as long ideally, but I'm afraid I don't have time for it, and interested editors are thin on the ground for contemporary art. I'm still creating articles for Turner Prize nominees who don't have them (latest is Callum Innes). Tyrenius 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The references to the UK YBAs are relevant. The term 'conceptual' is still perjoratively used in the UK press to describe all sorts of contemporary art. I understand that this may be a parochial concern, but it is certainly an advantage to allow UK users to understand the wider context.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've copied most of the text about the YBAs to the Neo-conceptual art article, which previously had only a couple of sentences.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Conceptual Art

I have added a quote by Joseph Kosuth which I feel is essential in establishing Duchamp's influence on later conceptual artists. Also, I concur with Kramer J that the omission of Kosuth in the timeline is appalling. I will attempt to add some artists and works in the timeline in later posts this Fall.
Mcameronboyd 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to get more input into this article. Tyrenius 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguities

The word concept has more than one meaning. The most sensible being "that which is common to several perceptions." The word idea has many meanings, from mental images to metaphysical forms. Words are mere signs that designate concepts and ideas. Conceptual art mixes these ambiguities together. The resulting product is made manifest for the public's evaluation.Lestrade 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

So it seems that no one is bothered by the description of Conceptual Art as both idea art and concept art. Everyone agrees, then, along with Sol LeWitt, that ideas and concepts are the same thing. It is a wonder why two different words are inefficiently used to designate the same thing. There are a few people who think that ideas are intuitive and that concepts are discursive. Intuitive would here mean that they are based on visual or other sensual perceptions. Discursive would mean that they are based on reasoned thought and dialogue. Do such pedantic distinctions belong in this Wikipedia article? If everyone is happy with idea art equalling concept art, then that is the level at which the article will remain. I guess that it wouldn't hurt to also call it notion art, while we're at it.Lestrade 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It is an interesting proposal to mount a critique of the first wave of conceptual artists based on their conflation of "idea" and "concept", though I'm not sure I entirely agree with your account of the distinction between the two terms. I don't really wish to debate that here, but it might be worth pointing out that the words are commonly interchangeable in everyday English usage, and thus it's not surprising that the early conceptual artists and writers adopted one, or both, without too much regard for a distinction between the terms. As you can see from the bibliography attached to the article, both labels were deployed in the earliest anthologies, although the word "conceptual" seems to have been more in favour, and this has stuck; nobody really calls it "idea art" anymore. The pertinent point is that both "idea art" and "conceptual art" were current labels during the early discourse of conceptualism, a fact of history rather than a significant theoretical issue for the early project of Conceptualism. However, some of the early writers did have a preference for one term over the other--they didn't all deem the words interchangeable--and I suspect you may find some discussion of their reasoning on this in the primary source material. Kramer J 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then my discussion about the confusion between idea and concept is valueless. Any word can be used to mean anything, as long as it accords with "everyday English usage." Any two terms can be interchanged "without too much regard for a distinction between the terms." I am not surprised. A culture that would take "conceptual art" seriously is a culture that wouldn't care about the difference between idea and concept.Lestrade 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I didn't say it was valueless, I said it was an interesting idea. My point was simply that the article deals with the movement and its history, and the two terms were used interchangebly for much of that early history. However, I also ended by saying that the notion of distinguishing ideas from concepts may well have arisen as a topic of debate among the artists at the time. If you go to the source material and find whether and where this is the case, it could make an excellent contribution to the article. To simply mount your own case against the movement based on your thoughts regarding "ideas", "concepts" and Schopenhauer would be P.O.V., as well as original research, and therefore invalid in this context.Kramer J 18:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors' personal opinions are irrelevant. Tyrenius 12:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Tyrenius, is that your personal opinion? If so, is it irrelevant?Lestrade 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
No. It's wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. Please study it, along with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Thank you. Tyrenius 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's personal opinion in the context of a forum, so it's relevant. If User:Tyrenius had posted it in the main article, then it would be irrelevant. This article is about the history of the movement, whether or not you like the art, agree or disagree with the quality or historical importance of the art. You can't erase the history simply because you don't like it. Hell, I'd be deleting shitloads of stuff on wiki if that was the rule. You don't like conceptual art, fine. You think conceptual artists are no-talent frauds? Write an essay and get it published. Arguing the semantics of the term or the value of the practice is only of limited use in this context, simply because you will not be able to to "delete" conceptual art from history. Freshacconci 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, the meaning (semantics) of the word conceptual has no place in the article or on the talk page. The value of the activity called conceptual art is also a forbidden topic. This reminds me on a story I once heard that was titled The Emperor's New Clothes.Lestrade 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Again, in this forum, on the discussion page, it's not forbidden. But placing it in the article is wrong because it's a value judgement. There are plenty of forums for presenting your opinions: letters to the editor, published writing, discussions. All valid. But we're talking about a history of conceptual art, not an argument about whether or not it's a legitimate artform. There's plenty of things that have made history, that I personally don't agree with, while other things remain obscure. That's the nature of history.Freshacconci 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please study Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
  • Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
Tyrenius 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of article

As Kramer J has said above, "Conceptual art was the first truly international avant-garde art movement, and perhaps the last of the great avant-gardes of the twentieth century", what this article needs is not the removal of material, but the addition of substantial material to depict the birth, growth, transformation, impact, perception and reception of the art form. Tyrenius 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Conceptual Art was recognized internationally; however Dada was also the practice of artists in the the west; but not the last of the great avant-gardes. Conceptual Art preceeded the technological watershed in the arts which brought about the digital era. The digital era, including video, robotics, artificial life, and so forth, began in the 20th century.
On another point, somewhat related, my addition in September was deleted without explanation. I added Natasha Vita-More's name to the list of artists becuase I find her work extraordinarily in step with this movement. If anyone wants to debate me on this, let's do it. Otherwise, it is unWikipedia-like to remove edits based on subjectivity. We are looking for a balanced essay on Conceptual Art which has accuracy and depth. As an art historian, I think that this mid/late 20th Century movement still has bones and must include current day artists who are visionary -- who actually think. Vita-More is a big thinker. http://www.lucifer.com/%7esasha/thinkers.html If you have not heard her in person, you can read about her ideas for the future. She has developed a future body design based on Conceptual Art, which takes Conceptual Art into the late 20th Century where it certainly ought to be. Avantguarde 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Pointlessness and Irrelevance

At the beginning of Talk:Conceptual Art there is a box with a question mark. It reads: “It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.” Such a remark is an indication of the wooden iron contradiction in the words “Conceptual Art.” If User:Kramer J hadn’t deleted Schopenhauer’s remark, a reader would know why there is such a natural human desire and need to see a photograph or image of Conceptual Art. Art must be based on perceptions, not concepts. Schopenhauer asserted that concepts are useful in life, as well as necessary and productive in science. However, according to him, they are “eternally barren and unproductive in art.” User:Kramer J judged that incisive remark to be pointless and irrelevant. User:Kramer J also claimed that comments for or against Conceptual Art are infinite. “Why not include comments by Wittgenstein, Descartes, or Arthur Danto?”, he asks. But if these thinkers have important and clarifying insights and thoughts on the subject of Conceptual Art, why not include them in the article? Would a few dozen of these words harm the article? I have seen serious Wikipedia articles that contain long lists of references to popular culture, television, and movies. If some screenwriter mentions Einstein in his silly script, then the Wikipedia article finds room to mention it without concern for its being “pointless and irrelevant.” But, if a real thinker has a dozen words to say about the relationship between concepts and art, there is always a User:Kramer J who will quickly delete it. So the request to see Conceptual Art will remain at the head of the Talk page. But it would be understandable to a reader who could have benefited from Schopenhauer’s remark about the futility of basing art on mere abstract concepts and the words that are used to designate them.Lestrade 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

We need to aim for a comprehensive survey of the subject, and this would seem to be a valid observation from a significant thinker, so perhaps it should be reinstated. Thoughts anyone? Tyrenius 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit my ignorance of the aforementioned Schopenhauer quote. However, I disagree with Lestrade that "Art must be based on perceptions, not concepts." The putative assessment (or Duchamp's word "consecration") of art is based on perception, after the fact. What art itself ought to be based on is highly variable and influenced by epistemic conditions and individual theories. The legislation of flawed "absolutes" that specify what art ought to entail are what helped to produce conceptual art. Lestrade re-states (I believe) a portion of the quote in question where Schopenhauer states that concepts are "eternally barren and unproductive in art.” As represented, this can be logically disproved, as actions are preceded by conscious thought (to act). At the very least, this makes the quote suspect in relevance and I would not recommend reinstatement.

Further, if we are including quotes of any nature in the article, I believe they should come from conceptual artists themselves or, in the exceptionally rare case, from someone writing specifically and substantively about the topic of Conceptual Art. Mcameronboyd 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I could only see three possible responses to the provocation of the schopenhauer quote: 1) leave it alone and uncontextualised to stand as gratuitous POV; 2) take it as an invitation to a never-ending game of "add a quote for/add a quote against"; or 3) delete it. There was of course a fourth option: work it into a general philosophical discussion of the relationship between the sensual and ideational in art, but that would eventually take us away from conceptualism and into the wider morass of philosophical aesthetics - a very sticky business. Kramer J 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that wiki uses secondary sources as in WP:VERIFY so quotes or observations from different writers are quite acceptable, not just from artists. Also a request to bear in mind that we are writing for an average reader, not art theoretical specialists, so language should be attuned accordingly. Tyrenius 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a quote by Sol LeWitt that the average reader should immediately comprehend: "The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is a component. Ideas implement the concept."Lestrade 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
That cannot be used unless you provide a verifiable reference for it. Anyone contributing to the article or the discussion should please note this essential point. Tyrenius 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

According to User:Mcameronboyd it is from LeWitt's "1969 piece 'Sentences on conceptual Art.' " As can be noted, LeWitt is as talented at making sentences as he is at making art.Lestrade 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Oxymoron

The term "Conceptual Art" is an oxymoron or wooden iron. A concept is a general thought that consists of that which is common to several perceptions. For example, I see a poodle, a hound, and a pit bull. If I think of the general individual that is common to all three, I have the concept dog. For purposes of communication, concepts are designated by names. Therefore, Conceptual Art would either show an individual perception or a name. If it shows an individual perception, it is visual art, not Conceptual Art. If it shows a name, then it is a mere sign, similar to a billboard containing words. The adjective "conceptual" is the opposite of the noun "art." That results in its being an oxymoron, or contradiction between an adjective and a noun.Lestrade 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Please study WP:TPG. This page is not the place for original research. Please contribute referenced material from secondary sources. Thank you. Tyrenius 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sit nomine digna

Re: the concept and the oxymoron. Jonathan Janes (?spelling) had an interesting discussion in his book "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind" which revolutionised the way i looked at poetry: the paraphrand and the metaphrand. These two may be useful in your thoughts on general versus specific terms. However, I agree with tyrenius that this ain't the place. In the end words are not pictures, though they are the only tools we have for communicating thoughts about art to each other, they are at best barely adequate. Lgh 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a Wikipedia article on Conceptual Art is not the place to clearly and distinctly present information about concepts, art, perceptions, and words. These four terms are all different from each other and their relationships are not commonly understood. It almost seems as though the article is expected to be read by mindless people who don't care to seriously understand anything involved in the subject of Conceptual Art. Maybe their interests are on other things, such as careers, appearing to be modern or current, etc. When you say that Jonathan Janes (spelling uncertain) wrote an article that revolutionised the way that you look at poetry, you are not adequately "communicating thoughts about art to" me.Lestrade 12:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Find some secondary sources and all will be well, as in WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy Artists

I have not seen a response to my query on the addition of Natasha Vita-More who I believe to be an exemplar conceptual artist. She is the first artist to conceptualize a future human in her well-received and highly publicized Primo Posthuman which has appeared in BBC, PBS, TLC, several times in Wired magazine, New York Times, London Guardian, amongst others. (The Atlantic Monthly magazine called her a cross between Duchamp and Madonna.) Regardless of whether or not authors are interested in the future, Vita-More is a pioneer and known conceptual thinker amongst scientists, technologists and artists who are interested in the future. I'd like to see her added to the list of artists in this article. Avantguarde 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been no comments. Please voice your views about adding Natasha Vita-More to the list of Conceptual Art artists. Since Conceputal Art is still a noteworthy genre (and perhaps making a comeback), it is opportune to add Vita-More to the list. Avantguarde 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I say yes to the addition of Natasha Vita-More. Yes, conceptual art is relevant, probably/possibly on the comeback, definitely so with the move into science and art hybridity, which I would classify under "conceptual art" since the formal elements are secondary to the concept/idea.Freshacconci 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree but she seems more to fit in an article about transhumanist art (should there be one) than in this. Mel Bochner hasn't yet been mentioned except for in the list, and better coverage of the movement needs to happen before making conjectures about it's legacy. About this kind of list- they are helpful in developing articles but often get removed once the article is in paragraph form. DVD+ R/W 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DVD+ R/W and would eventually like to see the list either removed or broken up into sections that more accurately reflect where each artist stands in relation the movement. As I write this, the list appears to be a jumble that includes many unrelated figures from both art history and contemporary art. Yves Klein, Yoko Ono, Maurizio Cattelan and Vanessa Beecroft, great as they may be as artists, have little in common, and to claim them as "notable conceptual artists" is a stretch at best, and probably very confusing for someone researching the movement for the first time--any logic that may have previously guided the selection of artists for this list appears to have been lost. A sub-listing of notable contemporary artists who owe a debt to conceptualism might help to clarify things, and I would have no problem with Natasha Vita-More's inclusion in such a list. Ultimately though, lists of this sort are unsatisfying and fluid. Robert Smithson and Ian Burn were prime-movers in the debates going on during the initial moment of conceptual art (as both artists and writers), yet they do not appear on the list, while the peripherally related figures of Wolf Vostell and Joseph Beuys do. This sort of anomaly will continue to crop up while any such list exists. Kramer J 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How about sub-dividing the list under headings to make it clear where each person fits in? And then moving it to its own page with a link from this article. Tyrenius 03:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A good idea. We'd need to come up with a logical structure for the sub-divisions and clear headings. Perhaps a simple chronological ordering will do; something like, 1) pre-Conceptual influences (Duchamp, Fluxus--others?), 2) the main movement (60s-early 70s), and 3) the Conceptual legacy (relevant contemporary artists). It's not a perfect way to carve things up, especially given that some of the artists from the first wave are still working today, and there will continue to be argument over who should be included in which section. Any other suggestions or ideas for further headings and/or better wording of the three I've mentioned? Kramer J 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Freshacconci for adding Natasha Vita-More because she represents the 21st century Conceptual Artist. Unless you want to see this genre dead, I highly suggest that you include Vita-More because she is one person whose voice will be heard in the arts when Transhumanism gains more ground worldwide. My suggestion is to have decades of Conceptual Artists from 1960 forward. My point being that if we are true to the genre, then we must be true to those who practice the art. Innovative conceptual thinking outperforms the status quo is deemed Conceptual Art. Remember, it is the "idea" - the brain work that is part and parcel to Conceptual Art, not the art itself. Who is a conceptual groundbreaker if not Vita-More? Her films and videos about immortality and gender-bending were produced in the 1970s, long before it became mainstream. Avantguarde 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article on her doesn't even mention conceptual art. "she is one person whose voice will be heard in the arts when Transhumanism gains more ground worldwide": we don't include predictions. Tyrenius 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of noteworthy artists

Should artists be added to the list of Conceptual artists if they don't already have an article on Wikipedia? Isn't it the article on Wikipedia that establishes notability for an artist, as far as Wikipedia is concerned? I removed "red lettered" artists from the list but another editor put them back. Any opinions on this? Bus stop 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was of a similar mind. I found (or was pointed to--can't remember off-hand) this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery. I guess the basic thinking is that a red link represents articles that need to be created. However, I think I'm with Bus stop to a degree. Too often articles (especially lists) will have an abundance of red links that are never turned into actual articles. I try to be inclusionist and also follow the whole WP:BITE mindset, so I often refer to the above WikiProject on the talk page of an editor who has included a red link in an article. (Was that a sentence?). I think that's a good idea up to a point. Simply googling a name (and they're usually names) helps determine notability and referring to the Red Link Recovery WikiProject gives a new editor a place to start. But red links that have lingered for a long time should be removed, I feel. My 2 cents. Freshacconci 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I find red links to artist's names problematic. That is because the product of the artist is for sale. Wikipedia is therefore just advertising the artist's work, unless, of course, notability is established. That is why I think an editor should be required to first establish an article for an artist before adding a red linked name to a list. Bus stop 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to err on the side of removal of red links in lists. There's too many non notable names inserted. It can be instructive to look at the contributing editor's other additions (if any). However, red links can serve a purpose to stimulate a needed article. That is the justification for them. Tyrenius 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is true to an extent; however the reason that I am so insistent about the inclusion of these three artists is that one (Brouwn) is generally considered to be a noteworthy first-generation conceptualist, if not to the degree of someone like Kosuth and Buren, and the other two are well-known younger conceptualists, again not as prominent as some other figures (e.g. Andrea Fraser, Christopher WIlliams) but still hardly unrecognized. Nevertheless I do understand that it is problematic to take their importance as a given within WIkipedia, and so I will try to create at least some basic articles before including them in the list. Arsene 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)