Conversation between Tao Wells, John Hurrell, Lilith Cohen

Lilith Cohen said...
Wayfarer Gallery asserts that [conceptual] art is a "sickly and weak carcass." Fair enough, but we need some closer analysis of this obituary.
My first point: this issue seems to hinge on the idea of conceptual art's ontology: that is, where exactly is it? And what makes it exist at all? My understanding is that it exists, if anywhere, in particular "conceptual art works." Hence, conceptual art works are a subset of "artworks." yet an artwork is a thing which has been fabricated with some degree of artistry. Now, by definition, a conceptual artwork is not a thing of artistry: the 'art,' if anywhere, is in the imaginative or intellectual faculty. In this sense, conceptual artworks are ontologically similar to the works of lawyers or philosophers. This suggests to me that the concept of "conceptual artwork" is an oxymoron. It only exists insofar as other people will accept the claim that the gesture (which is what it is, in the end) signifies an artwork.
My second suspicion is this: when the "but is it art?" objection is raised against the latest Turner Prize winner, the same trite explanation is repeated: "It is supposed to raise basic questions about the idea of what art is." There's the rub. We are supposed to believe that the particular conceptual work represents an interesting and intellectual rich insight. yet look at the dates, kids: Duchamp placed the urinal in an art gallery in 1917. That's nearly a century ago. Even if we grant that the whole readymade thing really is art, and not a game played with words, surely artists could come up with a new idea? Et Al, Billy Apple, Jeff Koons, Gail Haffern-- is it not to beggar belief that these people are to be bracketed in the same class as any artist at all worthy of note before 1917?

JUNE 1, 2008 9:16 PM
John Hurrell said...
Lilith, your notion of art seems to be 'art is what looks like art' Art however need not to be fabricated 'with artistry' or any visual quality. Check out George Dickie or Arthur Danto for their definitions of the subject. In your discussion of conceptual art you are confusing a definition of the anthropological activity with value judgements of the work's quality. There is no connection linking the two.