The Case for Conceptual Art

The Case for Conceptual Art

[MUSIC PLAYING] NARRATOR: You’re in a museum. In one room, you
admire an exquisitely rendered painting
of a lush garden by Spanish artist
Santiago Rusinol. In another you encounter one
of the most famous paintings in the world, a monumental work
by Picasso that bowls you over with its dynamic
composition of abstracted but still recognizable
figures and forms, telling you of the
horrors of the 1937 bombing of the
village of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. And in another room you come
across something completely different– a picture of a
chair, a chair, and a blown up dictionary definition of a chair
by Toledo, Ohio born artist Joseph Kosuth. What the actual [NO AUDIO]. Can we really call this art? This thing that is entirely
unlike those other things in the rooms before it? That exhibits no technical skill
and transports due to nowhere but right where you are,
in an empty feeling, slightly chilly gallery? How can this be art and what
am I supposed to do with it? This is the case
for conceptual art. Kosuth made this work
in New York in 1965. In the years leading up, the
Equal Pay Act had been passed, President John F Kennedy
was assassinated, the Civil Rights Act was
freshly signed into law, and the Vietnam War and protests
against it were in full effect. The decade’s identity as one
of counter-cultural revolution was crystallizing. And the art of the
time likewise reflected a widespread questioning
of tradition. There was pop art and minimalism
and happenings and fluxus. Paintings, when they did happen,
were coming off of the wall and invading your space. And there was also
this thing that Kosuth was doing which came to
be called conceptual art. In 1967, artist Sol Lewitt
explained it like this– “In conceptual art
the idea or concept is the most important
aspect of the work. It means that all the
planning and decisions are made beforehand
and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes the
machine that makes the art.” For Lewitt, this often meant
creating specific instructions and diagrams for large
scale wall drawings that could be carried out by others. Even after Lewitt’s death, a
drafts person or many of them can make the drawing
happen as long as the instructions and
certificate of authenticity are on hand. The resulting works
can be magnificent but it’s not the individual
touch of the artist that makes them so. It’s the idea supported
by proper execution. Sometimes people were the
machines that made the art. Like for a 1969
piece, Vito Acconci challenged himself to follow
randomly selected passers by until they entered
a private space. He said of it, “I’m
almost not an ‘I’ anymore; I put myself in the
service of this scheme.” And sometimes it was
actually machines that were the machines
that made the art. Ian Burn’s “Xerox Book” came
to be when he photocopied a blank sheet of white paper
and then copied that copy and so on and so forth 100 times
with more and more visual noise appearing as he went. Documentation is
often how we come to know about conceptual art. And that’s OK because
the physical presence is secondary to the idea
that brought it into being. You didn’t have to be there
to see Eleanor Antin parade 50 pairs of rubber boots on a trip
around California and New York. She took photos and
made postcards of them and mailed them to hundreds
of artists and museums and libraries and friends. And when you see one
of those postcards or hear about them
in a YouTube video, your understanding isn’t
really distorted or diminished. Art critic and
curator Lucy Lippard described what was
happening at the time as a dematerialization. It wasn’t often as literal as
John Baldessari’s cremation piece of 1969. In which he burned
all of his paintings and had the ashes interred in
a wall of the Jewish Museum. Because materials were
almost always involved, it’s just that they
were often ephemeral– maps, diagrams, photos,
books or at least not the primary concern. Even molten lead became
fleeting, as much as it can be, in the hands of Richard
Serra who in the late ’60s focused on action and
process over finished object. None of his original splash
or cast pieces still exist. They were made for temporary
shows and discarded after. Uniqueness wasn’t important. He has since made new iterations
following the same procedure. More characteristic
of conceptual art is Douglas Huebler’s
“Duration Piece #6” for which he made a rectangle
of sawdust in a doorway and documented it every
half hour for six hours. The sawdust was then cleared
away and what you see here is the final piece. Huebler said at the time,
“The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I
do not wish to add any more. I prefer simply to state
the existence of things in terms of time and/or place.” Which brings us
back to those chairs because what Kosuth is
doing is pointing out the existence of things
in time and place. Taking it a few steps further
than when Magritte reminded us that this painting of
a pipe is not a pipe. Like when we look at
this painting of a chair, we know it’s not a real chair. But we’re probably not thinking
about how it’s a kind of sign we recognize as
indicating a chair. Just as a dictionary definition
is a verbal sign that points to something in
the world and a photograph is a visual sign that
points to something that is or used to be in the world. Which of these
three chairs do we perceive to be more
chair than the other, especially now that this real
one is in a museum collection and will likely never
be sat in again? If this putting regular stuff
in a museum sounds familiar, it’s because Duchamp, who made
conceptual art way before it was cool or even had a name. In 1913, Marcel Duchamp
attached a bicycle wheel to a wooden stool and called
it a ready made work of art. It was art because
he said it was and because he put
it in a gallery. Kosuth’s operation
here is similar. He said, “The art consists of my
action of placing this activity in an art context.” But the art context didn’t
have to be a gallery. Sure, there were
exhibitions that chronicled this kind of
art but more often the art was its own means
of distribution. Seth Siegelaub thought
of his “Xerox Book” as an exhibition
venue in itself, giving each artist
included 25 pages to make a work that responded
in some way to the format. On Kawara made art by
documenting his everyday life and mailing news
of it on postcards to friends, acquaintances,
and art collectors. Eleanor Antin photographed
herself naked every morning to document her weight loss of
10 pounds over the course of 37 days. And Mary Kelly
recorded the activity of taking care of her young
son, reflected on motherhood and conversations with him. And eventually allowed
him to scribble over her documentation. As Lippard wrote
in 1973, “Much art now is transported
by the artist, or in the artist himself.” Conceptual art was a
way of working around the power structures of the
art world, which as it happens, was rife with himself’s
and around market concerns. Lee Lozano began her general
strike peace in 1969, declaring her withdrawal
from the art world and documenting her final
visits to gallery openings and museums. Conceptual art was
out in the world, often blending with activism. The Art Workers Coalition
organized in 1969 to agitate for artists rights
and against Vietnam, racism, and sexism. But for the most
part, conceptual art was political not in its
illustration of current events but in its commitment to
rethink the status quo. There was a worker
mentality and pragmatism to much first generation
conceptual art. A deadpan recording and
structuring of life, almost aggressively
unartful, that replaced the careful
consideration of composition and form and flourish
normally associated with art and artists. Ed Ruscha’s book “Twenty-six
Gasoline Stations” recorded exactly that,
26 gasoline stations. Bernd and Hilla Becher took
straightforward pictures of water towers. That’s what they did,
across years and continents. There was no trickery at play,
no need for an interpreter. What’s needed for this kind of
art, more than interpretation, is a shift in perspective. An opening of a door that allows
an idea by Douglas Huebler to be art. A piece of paper that
reads, the line above is rotating on its
axis at a speed of one revolution each day. Or a sign to be art, like
this one by Luis Camnitzer. You can sit with this
for a few seconds. In 1969, artist and
writer Victor Burgin contended “It may now be said
that an object becomes or fails to become a work of
art in direct response to the inclination
of the perceiver to assume an appreciative role. As Morse Peckham has put
it, ‘Art is not a category of perceptual fields
but of role playing.'” So it’s up to you. Do you want to play a
role and call this art? If you do, congratulations. In some cases, you
might now own it. Laurence Weiner’s “Two Minutes
Of Spray Paint Directly Upon The Floor From A
Standard Aerosol Spray Can” is exactly what it sounds like. And according to the artist
the year after it was made, “They don’t have to
buy it to have it. They can have it
just by knowing it.” We’re used to art
galleries being places where visual
experience reigns supreme. But conceptual art asks us
to understand the gallery experience as never having
been purely visual– always informed by our other
senses, the arts context, and the invisible perceptual
operations happening in our minds to process it. Conceptual art has
given us new words to describe what we encounter
and new levels of interaction. We can still appreciate
a masterful painting, but in a world after conceptual
art we do so with our blinders off. Understanding that art
is composed of signs. It illustrates, it lives
in specific buildings, it decorates rich
people’s homes. Once conceptualized lessons
have been internalized we see that this
is not a garden. This is not what
happened at Guernica. Conceptual art still
lives and blends with many other ways of making. But it’s a slippery
art, one that avoids living in just one spot,
one that resists ownership and being turned into
other luxury good. Despite its utopian
aims, conceptual art was and is still gobbled
up by institutions and put on the auction block. But when it’s good,
it lives far outside of our art stores and
places of art worship. And in this way,
these ephemeral works are strangely more permanent
for there never having much physicality to begin with. Marble crumbles, paintings
fade, but ideas– ideas can last forever. Hey, guys. PBS Digital Studios is
conducting its annual audience survey. Over 35,000 of you
responded last year and helped PBS make
important decisions about what kind of shows to
make and experiments to try. It helps us
understand who you are and what you like
and don’t like. If you have a few minutes,
please click the link and take a survey. Oh, and 25 random participants
will receive an awesome PBS Digital Studios t-shirt. So there’s that too. NARRATOR: Like our show? Subscribe. Really like our show? Support us by giving a
little each month on Patreon. Many thanks to all
of our patrons. Especially our grand
masters of the arts– Vincent Apa and
Indianapolis Homes Realty. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Dereck Turner

100 thoughts on “The Case for Conceptual Art

  1. Zeke S says:

    It's garbage

  2. Art Curious says:

    She’s a good narrator.

  3. Ahmet Bayulgen says:

    conceptual art is not art. its PR

  4. Nethan Garvey says:

    If you put a mouse in a fish tank it doesn't become a fish. It's still gonna drown. Same goes for chairs in galleries.

  5. Fabio Araujo says:

    Semiotics anyone?

  6. I Created An Account For This says:

    I also follow people around, but I keep following them into private spaces.

  7. sheeba ks says:

    I found this channel late.. Very late..

  8. Mélie Mélie says:

    Also known as "Hamparte".

  9. jenny123311994 says:

    Conceptual art is my least favourite. I had to learn it the hard way; in Paris, in the Pompidou museum, the “one in three chairs” just placed in the middle of the room. There were no descriptions and if there were, it would be in French only — Of course, when I saw it, I laughed at it and walked away.

    Curiosity led me to realize later on, what the significance of that piece was. I do like the concept of conceptual art but I don’t like the art from conceptual art.

    The thing that grinds my gears with conceptual art is that young college students who don’t have artistic skill, hand in projects with conceptual themes and getting an A in the class or worse yet a scholarship. But, that is the bias of my opinion of conceptual art.

  10. Reut Hershkovitz says:

    "Marble crumbles, paintings fade, but ideas – ideas can last forever"

    I want it as a tattoo.

  11. ALittle Lightning says:

    synopsis of video, what is art? what is chair?

  12. Lemon Curry says:

    I wonder how conceptual art works in the context of intellectual property laws, as ideas and concepts per se cannot be protected/copyrighted.

  13. Baylen Lucas says:

    The problem is a lot of these conceptual pieces of art are racing to be the most subversive. The idea of "challenging your preconceived notions of what qualifies as art" is itself becoming unoriginal. Also, tied up in the world of conceptual art are elitists with liberal arts degrees who will look at some really pretentious piece and convince themselves that they "get it". They do this to feel superior to the uneducated masses who they want to believe are only experiencing emotions at a very surface level.

  14. amanda bangan says:

    me when i watch the video : whut? wut? what? whh–

    end of video: ….so everything seems to be art now?

    (my brain still clicking away)

  15. MegaJman117 says:

    last semester i took a 3D design class as a requirement for my graphic design thing at my community college, he talked about Duchamp so much that i made a joke to him that we should make a drinking game for every time he says the name before our final crit… 30 minutes later he looks over at me points says to take a shot then going back to bringing up Duchamp

  16. Marcus Rodrigues says:

    Very nice video, but I felt it was all about who is doing art, not in who's viewing and absorbing it. Conceptual art seems like a very sophisticated meal whose techniques appeal only to the chef that made it. Worthwhile watching, anyway!

  17. Ashton Lewis says:

    I’ve honestly always loved conceptual art, as long as it’s done well. It’s thought provoking and beautiful in its own way

  18. Abdo Gawad says:

    Great! But also, Why do we call this 7:48 Art not just Documentation ?

  19. paul Smith says:

    A 3 year old can make an abstract painting with their hands. The village idiot can make a statement piece by throwing off his wellington boots as they climbs a flight of stairs. A cook can create a conceptual art masterpiece by simply taking a new food mixer out of its box and placing it on a bench. The problem with conceptual art is it is largely mediocre. For the first time in history the person viewing a work at a major expedition is capable of creating it themselves. And that is a really sad reflection on todays art world.

  20. william badovinac says:

    Conceptual art is usually about some vane idiot's awareness that needs staging. Those "artists?" are frustrated fairy tale teachers. Awareness exists then disappears forever. Everybody's got some. Some get a lot of money saying "Oh look!" Of the thousands of pieces of gallery Conceptual art I have viewed few stood up to the challenge. Mostly it is open to conjecture and no permanence in memory where it really counts. Who has the patience to admire rainbow colored poop on a the kitchen counter? Mostly an American $$ Cha-Ching thing. The worst part is a fine minded artist is mislead.

  21. R. Keffer says:

    This makes me so happy. Purely happy.

  22. Renzo says:

    Conceptual art is, essentially, a 180 degree departure from what we have traditionally thought of as “art”.
    And by art, I mean the visual arts: painting, drawing, sculpture architecture etc.
    The big problem is that while the traditional visual arts have a millenniums long history, this new kid on the block,does not.
    Sculpture has evolved from The Venus of Willendorf to the Great Sphinx, the Venus De Milo, Michelangelo's David up to Rodin, the Statue of Liberty and Alexander Calder.
    The arts of painting and drawing can be traced back to the cave paintings of Lascaux in France to The Sistine Chapel, Monet and Degas, Mark Rothko and beyond.
    And through all of the changes, these art forms have stayed essentially the same:making marks on paper, canvas, wood, plaster etc. and building up forms in three dimensions as sculpture and architecture.
    Along with the evolution of these art genres has developed a language and a set of criteria that form standards by which such pieces can be critiqued, evaluated and placed in historical context.
    And while some people might like the lurid landscapes of Thomas Kinkade, his paintings are not and should not be hung alongside the landscapes of Church, Cole, van Gogh, Cézanne and Thiebaud.
    There IS such a thing as bad art and we know what it looks like and why!
    It is called esthetics.

    This cannot be said of Conceptual art.
    All sorts of crappy, bogus and hare brained stuff is piled up or strewn across the floors of museums and exalted as art because no one knows or can know what is worthy and what is not.
    So you get pieces of blank white paper crumpled up in a ball, three basketballs suspended in a fish tank and cans of human excrement.
    Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of Conceptual art !

    Let me tell you that when my brother was just starting school, he rebelled at the rules of spelling.
    Why did words have to be spelled in a particular way?
    Why couldn't he spell them as he wanted to spell them?
    He resented the rules and he resisted the authority of those who made them !
    Keep this in mind.

    I think that Conceptual art originated with people who could not and would not do the difficult work required to become a 'traditional' artist.

    Can't master the necessary skills ?
    No knowledge of perspective?
    Can't draw?
    Don't want to have to learn color theory?
    Can't master composition?
    No knowledge of human anatomy?
    Can't render tonal values
    Can’t be bothered ?

    These are skills that you have to WORK to prefect.
    It’s difficult.
    It takes…..effort.

    But maybe you want a fast track to the exalted position of "artist “.

    Well then, here's what you do:

    Belittle the importance of those skills and debase the notion that they are a prerequisite to creating art.
    Instead, create an art genre that you CAN do.
    A new genre.
    And let's call it Conceptual art.
    Conceptual artists claim that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are the main feature of their art.
    They can slap anything together and call it ''conceptual art'' confident that viewers will find SOMETHING to think about it no matter how banal or trivial the artist's concept!

    There is no way conceptual art pieces can be judged.
    The promoters of this art have attacked the motives and credibility of authorities and critics who might disparage the work.
    They have rejected museums and galleries as defining authorities.
    They reject the idea that art can be judged or criticized .
    All of this results in a decline in standards.
    And when you jettison standards, quality suffers.

    There really IS such a thing as BAD art !

    We know this only because we have standards and criteria by which such things can be evaluated.
    It seems that conceptual art comes down to a basic idea:
    No one has the right or authority to make any judgements about art !
    Art is anything you can get away with !

    A whole new language has been created to give the work an air of legitimacy and gravitas.
    Conceptual art is 'sold' to the unwary public with ….."ArtSpeak".

    ArtSpeak is a unique assemblage of English words and phrases that the International Art world uses but which are devoid of meaning!
    Have you ever found yourself confronted by an art gallery’s description of an exhibition which seems completely indecipherable?
    Or an artist’s statement about their work which left you more confused than enlightened?
    You’re not alone.

    Here are examples of ArtSpeak:

    'Works that probe the dialectic between innovations that seem to have been forgotten, the ruinous present state of projects once created amid great euphoria, and the present as an era of transitions and new beginnings.''


    ''The exhibition reactivates his career-long investigation into the social mutations of desire and repression. But his earlier concerns with repression production–in the adolescent or in the family as a whole–give way to the vertiginous retrieval and wayward reinvention of mythical community and sub-cultural traditions.''

    This language is meant to convince me that there is real substance to this drivel which is being passed off as art.
    I don't buy it.

    But plenty of other people DO buy it.
    Not because they love the work.
    They are laying out enormous sums in the belief that their investment will bring them high returns in the future.

    One Jeff Koons conceptual piece is three basketballs suspended in a fish tank.,_Tate_Liverpool.jpg

    Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim:

    “ This is an ultimate state of being.
    I wanted to play with people’s desires.
    They desire this equilibrium.
    They desire pre-birth.
    I was giving a definition of life and death.
    This is the eternal.
    This is what life is like, also, after death.
    Aspects of the eternal”

    Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!!

    It sold for $350,000.
    I wonder what it would have fetched without Koons' name attached to it.

    Or take the case of Martin Creed's ball of crumpled white copy paper.

    He made almost 700 of them!
    Some sold for hundreds of dollars.

    Martin Creed, when asked during an interview how he would respond to those who say the crumpled paper ball isn’t art said :
    “ I wouldn’t call this art either. Who says, anyway, what’s good and what’s bad?”

    ''When confronted with conceptual art, we shouldn’t worry whether it’s art or not because no one really knows what art is.''

    Is this what art has come to??


    Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 50 years.
    Cubism slid into non-representational art….what is often called Abstract.
    Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre.

    But to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation.
    It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary.
    Something that anyone could do.

    Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”.
    This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art.
    Art is what I say it is….and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon.
    Anyone can be an artist.
    Anyone can mount a show.
    And who is to say if it has value or not ?

    A tacit agreement has formed among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles.
    Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised .
    Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery.

    And when they come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value.

    The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made.
    And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines !
    This is what dominates the art market today.

    The love of money is the root of all evil.
    It has corrupted politics.
    It has corrupted sport.
    It has corrupted healthcare.
    It has corrupted religion.
    And now it has corrupted art.

    But, there is reason to hope.

    As much of the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans was kept alive through the Middle Ages in small pockets of learning and culture, ateliers have sprung up around the world that are devoted to preserving and handing down the traditional visual arts: drawing, painting and sculpting to each new generation.

    And when this craze for conceptual art has burned itself out and when visual art is no longer looked on as mere decoration and when schools that have dissolved their art programs want to reestablish them again, the world will find these skills preserved through the atelier movement.

  23. George Thom says:

    Nice, Victor Burgin did a lecture when I was at art school 🙂 He showed a piece about a virtual coffee shop.

  24. Mavicity Relayson says:

    This is my favorite kind of art. The concept, the idea, especially the rare first-born, no matter the manner of execution, always wins. And that's comforting. That even when our skills may be limited, we can always be rescued by our thoughts.

  25. Depth says:

    This was amazing. When she pointed out the existence of the chair in the 3 forms my mind was blown hahaha.

  26. Jose Tanierla says:

    Comparing Conceptual Art to say, the figurative paintings of Vincent Desiderio, i tend to evaluate the former as inferior to the latter. Desiderio’s works are done with such impressive skill that Creed’s 227 almost becomes ridiculous when compared to it.
    Also, the meaning of Desiderio’s works not only reside in the elements, but in the arrangements/ method of arranging the pigments, which i thought is a philosophical question as well.*
    How can we see Conceptual Art as not pretentious, or not merely an alibi for the technically unskilled, when its merits and characteristics can also be expressed, and experienced in other art forms whose execution requires skilled, deliberate labor? Thanks!

    *did a google search of his philosophy, Narrativity

  27. Karl Kastor says:

    7:23 Reminds me of Kraftwerk describing themselves as music workers.

  28. haidarah alhaibie says:

    Am I supposed to know this shitty philosophy by looking at a white canvas?!

  29. TRAP SOUL says:

    So, it's like a tricky question, whereas you sho uld recognizer what's real and what's not?… They're reminding Me of FUCKING reality???!!!

  30. Mazduda Hassan says:

    Thanks so much for this !! ✿

  31. Hoeri Kim says:

    Best video I've seen on youtube! Thank you very much!

  32. Punk Jesus says:

    these videos make me want to create something. they make me have a physical feeling of wanting to convey emotion onto a canvas but i don't even know what to do. I dont know how to respond to this feeling because im unsure that i could create something even close to how im feeling. i figure that how a lot of artists feel, though.

  33. asdabir says:

    Eh, I still call BS. I do like abstract, expressionism and impressionist art but this is a bit of a stretch.

  34. Mayank Kumar says:

    I dont know why. But you guys are changing my view for art every video of yours i click on

  35. Shekhar Kumar says:

    Some art should go to dustbin.

  36. NY HOÀNG says:

    Atleast it has more meaning and more interesting than a so called "pure white canvas" of minimalism lol

  37. Goo Lagoon says:

    The thing that bothers me about learning about conceptual art is that the more you learn, the harder it is to think of something that hasn't been done before. You can think of something amazing entirely on your own and then find out that someone else has done something almost the same in the past.

  38. Konstantinos Papaioannou says:

    Amazing video. Thank you for that. I still have a question, though: how do conceptual artists make a living?

  39. K R says:

    Sophistry 😒

  40. Dana Church says:

    I really enjoyed this video.

  41. Professr Frank says:

    Ideas last forever, YES!
    EXCELLENT! Brava! 🌹☮️❤️

  42. James Anti says:

    This made me a lot more confident in my own artistic pursuits

  43. Lee Barry says:

    People say "anyone can do that!" So Anyone–please do it! ( Even this could be the basis as a conceptual-text piece.) Also I think lots of pop music is conceptual because music arises from ideas about sound organization and how it is shaped into cultural objects through memesis, or whatever causes it to be popular, and not solely on talent or technique.

  44. Tami Ferreira says:

    How can I add closed captions on this video?

  45. The Misplaced Idealist says:

    I would have argued that the chair exhibit is a representation of the semiotic triangle. The chair itself is the object in the world, the photograph is the representation in the mind and the definition of the word 'chair' is the meaning of the symbol.

  46. Juan Barrera says:

    Just like the argument and document of concept and idea of the video that allows or barrows the perception of knowing the interference of time and space in a random moment that let the erudition and validation of Art as an idea with no duality or integrity in the contemporary interaction between critics and curators with the impression of protecting their own ideas with empty values makes conceptual Art what it is , a bast area of discovery and adaptation in their own rights .

  47. gabriel díaz romero says:

    Kosuth systematized a drawing by René Magritte, with total impunity. (Les mots et les images, 1928-29)
    A conceptual art that apparently criticized the institution of art ended up being very profitable.

    It is not necessary to invade the world with objects, their images and their dictionary definitions. With just one example, it would have sufficed.

  48. Smoky Bear says:

    People are so gullible.

  49. Watch The Skies says:

    Yeah, but what if the ideas are really, really, stupid ideas?

  50. TheDogFather Supreme says:

    I made a conceptual art piece for a final project exam. It got me a very high grade and even an award and I don't even know why. This video sorta helped me understand it more though.

  51. Arcturusgold says:

    Conceptual Art…..? it's all in the mind…….Like Platonic Love, "From the Neck UP."

  52. soldierofvanity says:

    Marble does n't crumble and paintings don't fade, maybe in a few googleplex years yes. Owh and there is no entropy. Everyone who says yes to this line is a moron.

  53. Elasticbrand says:

    A great tool to help explain the value of conceptual art (Idea, perception and context) to those who think "real" art can only be about craft and technical skill.

  54. Mindful Attraction 2.0 says:

    Not convinced

  55. Dilpreet says:

    It'S a great video with full of knowledge about conceptual art… Thank you so much

  56. Debroop says:

    In computer science , if N = NP , that metaphorically means solving a difficult question is equivalent to understanding it. Or understanding art/music is same as creating it . So artists themselves can fully enjoy in these museums . Other public not liking to think, would be looking for colors and want art served in a platter. Eg: Open exhibition restaurants where you can learn how to cook by seeing chefs and cook your own food later. Ridiculous for now but might be a thing in future . Or if N=NP is solved , one can create machines that can be kept in the home and create art that is tailor made for you .

  57. Edgar Cross says:

    a fuckin chair !

  58. Jerry Setlerr says:


  59. RichardCorral says:

    Lets be honest though, its mostly bullshit

  60. Eli Castelli says:

    There is No F in ART (is there?) a whimsical, irreverent view of Conceptual art.

  61. chicit says:

    Nothing, last, forever…

  62. Lucian David says:

    Why do people mostly assume the value of art depends on how much it’s worth financially?

  63. Brett Lockhart says:

    All too often counter-cultural art is more about rejecting classic art then it is about expressing something unique and constructive. Picasso tried to paint like Bouguereau but couldn't. His open resentment only increased after Bouguereau died. And the modernist scourge has been trying it's best to destroy everything traditional ever since. Thankfully, they have failed.

  64. Szymon W. says:

    2:40 Acconci was lucky to not meet me. If some weirdo with camera would spy me he would got his face punched.

    seriously… even if idea is most important, that was one of the most stupid one. 🙂
    Btw I love conceptual art but only with good good and clever concepts. 🙂

  65. roxasxiii380 says:

    I always laugh when art "hipsters" have no fucking clue how to read contemporary/conceptual art and legit the artwork would be made for the nost simplistic reason but the hipsters try to make it deep unnecessarily

  66. Scribblebytes says:

    I think memes are pomo at the cultural level.

  67. Ben Althauser says:

    The definition of what is "art" by some has become to broad for my taste.

  68. Arcturusgold says:

    This Statement is a Conceptual Work of Art unless you read it in which case it ceases to be, unless you read it again……

  69. David Mayhew says:

    You are so good! Smart. Engaging.

  70. Alexandra Ljadova says:

    "Conceptual art is a manifestation of a philosophy, with or without any craftsmanship." Is what I think.

  71. Wimsem - Tekenen & Knutselen says:

    The fact that it makes you mad means its art :p

  72. Kanishka das says:


  73. Pata Physics says:

    Kathy Acker lived with the Antins in Solano Beach. She used the list of addresses to mail out post cards of her writings.

  74. AeroDynamic says:

    let's get back to the art of drawing, painting and sculpture, because this crap is thoroughly unsatisfying nothingness.

  75. Apricot Sundae says:

    I don't get conceptual art at all… And I'm supposed to make one and pass it on Monday😥

  76. IAN THESEIRA says:

    "you are in a museum"…of malcontents? Of the never fully complete or satisfied? Because progenitors are more than curators? May be one deviating hunting trail taken in search of meaning and cause?

    Catalysts looking for push backs that are never quite like the original? You mean like those involving big bangs and prime moves?

    Maybe this is as much as myth as Brugel's tower of Babylon – symbol of permanent incompletion, always at some stage of construction/ deconstruction.

    Recognition affirming and confirming this state, like the very spiraling drill bit structure, boring its way into root command levels of the Universe/collective consciousness?

    Why then so unsatisfied? Just doing my job sir, may be the response. And if our jobs are to remain in complete? The gapping hole the source of energy that powers society itself.

    Where fermentation, distillation, separation and intoxication powering life wheels itself

    Or like Eastern folk phenomenon of hungry ghosts, basis of unhappiness and disatisfaction that then gives birth to its opposites (because how can one exist without the other?).

    So a perpetual motion machine powering decay but also re-genesis, ultimately destined to always yearn for one state when in another.

    Bonnies looking for her Clyde's. Ends looking for means?

    Because this focused distraction is what prevents those mirrors that open doorways into eternity, from cracking.

    Unless that has already happen, and we are trapped in such a cracked mirror, as fractured as all the various versions of life, and personality types pushing in one direction or another

    This is presuming that a little more honesty is not the balm sought here?

    Just a sympathetic ear and a cheeky pat on the bum, is sometimes all that's required to motivate us along this winding treacherous path we're on.

    Just enough to see us to the next crossed station, to get on the wrong train, with the wrong person, in the wrong life?

  77. Artarr says:

    "Conceptual Art was a way of working around the power structures of the art world",
    today we are working a way around conptual art which has become the power structure.

  78. yung cash register says:

    in the trash, where it belongs

  79. G. Boychev says:

    Conceptual art is bourgeois art, prioritizing "concepts" over social reality. The reality of the chair consists of the objective social conditions that the chair is part of and conceptual art has nothing to say about those. How does this form of art serve the interests of the working class if it's so revolutionary and subversive? Show me the reality of social life and ways to change that, not concepts in the heads of petty bourgeois intellectuals.

  80. Teguh Wiyanto says:

    Translate to indonesian?

  81. Olga l says:

    So glad to have found this channel! Excellent content.

  82. Dylan Thibert says:


  83. Devin du Plessis says:

    8:13 I mean I think it’s a clever thing to carve into a school desk…

  84. Nandini Mediratta says:

    Hey! I have a new channel about art and design!
    An aspiring designers wanting to share her experiences! Give it a sub if you're interested!

  85. Marie Nimo says:

    Ahhhh~ I should print out my FB "stories" as a contribution to contemporary art 😀

  86. Avery Nelson says:

    I love the boots. That seems so whimsical and fun.

  87. Charles Sykes says:

    Conceptual Art where anyone can be an Artist blame Duchamp and Warhol

  88. alertonoff 4 says:

    cool post ………… i wonder if there is such a thing as sonic conceptual art ? … (may i sample a couple of sections of speech here please ?)

  89. javier josefides says:

    1-Ask your child/nephew to do a painting.
    2- Invent and write a story that sounds intellectual.
    3-Find an art gallery that believes in your absurdity.

  90. Sukhroop Singh says:

    Conceptual art… more like contextual art.

  91. scorpioninpink says:

    Case for Video Games as Art.
    Case for Anime/Animation as Art.
    Case for Pop Art.
    Case for Street Art.
    Case for Manga/Comics as Art.

  92. Igor Fagundes says:

    Before you consider if each one is "art", you must ask before: "what the heck is art".

    And if you a bit trickster you should probably have asked yourself why the need to define these as art.

  93. peanut12345 says:

    Stick shoes to white canvas, call it " I walked around the world". Where is by $$$. Some "genius" thinks this too cool man.

  94. Marcel Moonen says:

    A lot of conceptual art is unluckily a bit stuck with Duchamp. Is the same 'prank' over and over again.
    Post-conceptualism or better call it meme-art.
    This trend of putting some statements in big letters, it's all so dull.
    These are not great idea's like Lewitt, just pranks taking themselves too serious i.m.o.

    Thanks for the great video.

  95. sklator. says:

    I watched a lot of people explain about conceptual art. And I still don't get it.

  96. Ataensic Hahgwehdiyu says:

    These are concepts in the place of art. The purpose of true art is to present a conceptual idea in a perceptual form. Ideas in and of themselves are not art. Putting something in a gallery doesn't magically turn it into art just because the person who put it there want's you to have thoughts about it.

  97. Cassandra says:

    Yeah I have issues with conceptual art

  98. Adel Wolf says:

    Thank you for this. It cemented in my mind something I didn't really realize – I LOVE conceptual art! I get EXCITED by some conceptual pieces – like several of the ones you showed in this video – in a way that I haven't often been with other types.

  99. Ricky Soulless says:

    Conceptual art is the same thing you get after generations of inbreeding. It's the art world being so seperated from reality it just produces literal garbage. If the most important thing about this work is the idea and no one knows what the fuck you were thinking while making it then you just suck at art, you've literally failed at communicating anything. If the idea is "let's just see if these idiots will take this shit seriously" than it's a very successful prank.

  100. Don Bailey says:

    Conceptual art, locks man in his oun mind away from both GOD and nature, it causes the mind to
    Gravitate towards sensory depravation.
    In other words to shut off your thinking, as there is nothing to
    Contemplate .it is spiritual and aesthetic depravation.
    There are more things in mans mind then in heaven and earth
    Combined , one picture is worth a thousand words, a picture fills the mind fuller then words, thoughs exist frist as pictures then find words.
    However conceptual art like all art after the french impressionist
    has lost its human soul and the cave drawning of prehistory have a greater claim to being art.
    Look at any old master and you will see the heart and soul of his age, go to the city of Pompeii and you will see the ancient world of Rome on her walls and her statues.
    People found a pair of eyes glasses someone dropped in an art Museum , people were takeing pictures of them thinking they were an exhibit before the guards took them to lost and found.
    What got lost was the sacred, the essence of the holy which differentiates man from animal.
    Conceptual art is the human mind left to feed on its self into the a a Abyss of sensory deprivation , the soul of man was made to contemplate a power greater then himself and that power is GOD , wisdom and beauty are sister spirits danceing in the hand of GOD, look at a tree in contemplation the ever changeing colors sunlight to dark of night
    Modern art cast this beauty under foot and replace it with what looks like a mad mans nightmare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *