Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

by techgnotic
Wed Dec 7, 2011, 7:59 PM

Duchamp finds a discarded urinal.  He alters it (by signing a name to it not even his own, but obviously “the artist’s”)
and names it “The Fountain”. The most mundane, even off-putting, of objects is transformed by Duchamp into art. He submits
it for exhibition and it is rejected.  You might say the judges “pissed on” his idea. But the idea was born and persisted.
Duchamp insisted the object was art because he as an artist presented it as such. “Conceptual Art” was born.

A Theory of the Essence of Art: The Concept is Everything.

Artists following Duchamp sought to really get at what art is all about by diminishing the compositional and aesthetic
element of an artwork and concentrating on what “art says about it itself” – the commentary a piece of art makes on artist
and viewer, on the very nature of art, on why we make art and look at it and what the experience means.

What if an artwork is wildly technically accomplished but “means” little or nothing to the artist?

Michelangelo spent six years painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling and another six adding “The Final Judgment”. He especially
resented the ceiling job, considering it the Pope’s “vanity” project.  Now his genius is recognized, but at the time he felt like he was doing slave labor, rather than making his own statement in art.

Hostages Of Temptation by oO-Rein-Oo:thumb24477654: retirement installation: then by jordanmart

Conceptualists take the “idea” in art and posit that artistic skill is not the point.
“The Concept” is the whole message, the whole point of the message, the expression, the human exchange.

Yoko Ono "published" as art her notes on how to go about having an aesthetic experience with art.

Alfred Hitchcock meticulously crafted screenplays and fully “storyboarded” (made scene by scene drawings exactly as the camera would
frame each scene) before rolling film on his movies. He complained that the real moviemaking, the real artistry, came in the creation of
the storyboards. After that, he felt, his movie was “done.” He found the actual filming redundant and boring.

But what if these abstract modern artists are really just con men or hacks who can’t draw?

Check out Jackson Pollock's early abstract paintings that he did before he began dripping paint on the floor.

Check out Rauschenberg’s 300 early paintings before “his” “Erased De Kooniong Drawing”.

Check out Miro’s early representational work from before the sculptures and mobiles.

Check out Julian Schnabel’s early paintings from before he started gluing broken plates to walls.

There’s quite a body of evidence that “conceptual art” isn’t a con. Real artists go where their muse takes them – even if it’s to “the thought” that births the art becoming the art itself.

Worrying about artists’ motives brings up the question of “artist’s intention”.Conception and intention are different.  A traditional
artist “intends” to achieve expressing something for him/herself and/or to an audience through an artwork.  The artist’s intent may be to
capture and invoke sadness, apathy, ecstasy, whimsy, etc.  When DuChamp did his Urinal he was only talking about the meaning of art itself, he was not trying to convey any other idea.

At the end of it all, can we ever really know an artist’s intention or fully understand his/her big concept?  We often think we can and do.
Like we think we know the heart of our beloved. That little leap of faith is what art – and life – is all about.  And all the affirmations and
disillusionments that follow in the wake of each momentous jump into the unknown we kind of think we know is a part of that Big Concept.

Questions for the Reader:

  1. If an artist makes you think up is down it could be construed as a game, a trick, or an artifice like a landscape reflected in a clear lake. Conceptual art is something that makes you wonder why there is an up or down and doesn’t confuse that effort with any particular “art.”  If there is no art to see, is it art at all? or maybe just a dialectic?”
  2. Christo and his wife, Jeanne-Claude, wrapped eleven islands in Biscayne Bay in pink fabric for two weeks.   What do you think these artists were saying about the environment?  That natural beauty is a gift?  Or a gift that needs no wrapping?  Or a gift in danger of being ruined by commercialization? Or that natures artwork can only be represented or framed in anew light, but never improved, by the artist?
  3. Andy kaufman was a comedian who turned “stand-up” into performance art, sometimes “ending” his routine by walking his entire audience to a nearby 7-Eleven for snacks.  Sometimes he remained “in-character” as a pro wrestler or a bad lounge singer for weeks at a time.  Do you know of other artists who have “conceptually” burst the normal bounds of their specific art forms in amazing ways?
  4. Is the “Occupy Wall Street” movement not only a political statement, but also an example of conceptual performance art or “street theatre”?  Should art and protest be clearly defined or are they too closely related to ever be easily categorized or separated?  How do you think history and pop culture will define the Occupy Wall Street protests?

Add a Comment:
Joellll Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2012
I hate to post this, but I really want to tell you guys this is the 1,337th comment. 8)
katu01 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Professional General Artist
Edward Kienholz, 1927-1994, might have been among the first of the Conceptualists conveying social statements in the form of life-sized, collage sculptures - primarily because his works were accompanied by his own commentary. Yes, "Back Seat Dodge '38" was an obvious statement with enough shock factor to unleash a media-driven moral frenzy. The reaction, a politically inflamed attempt to use funding to coerce the Los Angeles County Museum of Art into removing Kienholz's work managed instead to catapult him to fame.

But Kienholz is hardly the first, for there was early Egyptian art (~1,200 BC) that today would be considered pornographic and a "clear sign" that their society was in "decline". Those early concept pieces depicted the ruling class in compromising situations with common people and may have expressed contempt too risky to speak. Even Michael Angelo managed to paint the faces of bishops, cardinals, and governors he disliked on the wrong side of the River Styx. The point is that art may express a message as current today as it did in ancient times when putting sentiment in words was suicide. If art manages to express a revelation or commonly-held viewpoint, it doesn't have to be a Vermeer masterpiece to achieve success, but the Vermeer masterpiece will be desirable for its beauty long after the social commentary loses all meaning.

No matter the method by which a concept is conveyed, whether play, opera, painting, diorama, movie, public demonstration, or narration, it boils down to this: quality endures. I'd rather have physics taught to me by Dr. Jacob Bronowski than George W. Bush. As for the Occupy Wall Street "play", media coverage has been as hostile as it was toward Edward Kienholz, so the hope is that OWS will achieve similar successes.
techgnotic Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2012
Just caught the Kienholz "Five Car Stud" installment at MOCA this weekend. The juxtaposition of the "American Dream" buggies with the sort of racist atrocity sometimes underlying that mythologized "Happy Days" period is quite powerful, even if the quality of the art itself is more provocative than meritorious. But then, perhaps Kienholz would judge his success not in media reviews but, like OWS, in how much awareness and social dialogue, i.e., how much of a positive "event" his statement aroused around an issue of injustice, he managed to create. And of course I absolutely agree with you: quality is what endures long after the immediate "social context" has been reduced to a footnote. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
BigA-nt Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very interesting article - and I do agree with a lot of it. I believe, for example, that art is in everything. It's just a matter, sometimes, of the artist recognising it and then displaying it. I see some artwork and the concept jumps out at me and tells me instantly what its about. I see other artwork and it means nothing to me so I have to read the artists interpretation of what it is, in order to understand it.
I do also believe, however, that the quality of the artwork makes a difference to the concept. Even if its something simple like gluing plates to walls. They have to be glued in a way which is significant. Otherwise the concept doesn't come from the artwork, it comes out of the observer and into the artwork.
Possibly, the combination of strong concepts and excellent artwork makes for the best art.
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I have a question. I'm seeing quite a bit of negativity towards, "Conceptual Art."

Can someone define what this is and why it is so often thought of in negative terms ?
mariosilvaartdesign Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Narrow view of an ambiguous term
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
How so ?
mariosilvaartdesign Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Art definitions are by definition (pun intended) ambiguous and ever changing.

Some people can cope with change or see opposite opinions (to their own) as valuable and necessary. Others rather not face the unknown or get out of their comfort zone, nor question their self established limits.

Therefore they defend their limits out of fear, expressed in their negativity against anything that they cannot grasp (ie don't like,don't get, hate). I rather start with the assumption that I have limits, I don't grasp anything fully and i don't hold any keys... maybe when i die i can see in absolutes. For now i just hold some arguments that may and will be changed by some better one.
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Huum ... Well, maybe I will always feel -jealous- of others who toss are out in minutes and then everyone critiques on the depth of it for years to come.

Perhaps that is not a solely shared feeling ?

And yet at the same time, like when I came across a house that was entirely bedecked and decorated outside in beer cans, strings and strings of them from corner to corner of the house and a big sign in the middle that said, "Rehab is for quitters."

I thought that in itself was an excellent if not humorous expression of art, and there was the time and effort involved in stringing all the cans together, clearly days if not weeks of work from the depth and detail that I saw.
mariosilvaartdesign Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
If an artist can focus in the joy of the moment of creation, anything else becomes quite secondary if not completely meaningless.
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, unfortunately also, art is seldom a one-way street.

If you do art, privately, secretly, and never show it to anyone else, then it can never be appraised by anyone except yourself.

Art, entirely by circumstance, must be accepted by seen by at least one other person in order to be categorized, truly, as art.

The actual definition reads:

"The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

"According to aesthetic principles." This phrase alone denotes that it must be accepted by others and not solely by a single man's opinion.
mariosilvaartdesign Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
True art changes aesthetic principles, and NO ONE holds the definition of true art, it's ever changing.

Art is not equal to communication, it CAN be a one way street.

I would say a true artist is driven by the will to create, and especially not in order to be categorized... that's just chaining the last bastion of freedom.
(1 Reply)
TheTravelingArtist Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Student General Artist
It made me think and wonder.

All I have to say and share with DeviantArt Community is the result of my thoughts. It may not be the perfect picture to everyone, but it is my understanding and conclusion about this article.

Feel free to read, what I came up with.

:thumb277135687: [link]
Jasun100 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012
Hello I have been drawing and painting for over thirty years and really this is getting old! This is very similar to the question what is art? Is it really that important for us to find one concrete definition and then set guidelines.What if somebody fails to meet those guidelines are we then going to have the art police go and restrict them from creating art. The only definition I have ever really heard that comes close to defining art is "the taking of ordinary materials and doing something extraordinary with them". This idea of concept art totally baffles me. Usually I have a concept in mind when I start a piece something I wish to convey even if it is something as basic as anger. I may as what always happens mean to say one thing and the audience may see something else. That will always be for art is interpretive and may mean different things to different people. The argument here quite simply is; is the idea of art or what inspired it more important than the art itself?I would say they are equally important an example would be if I were inspired by the problem of Global warming and did a piece of art pointing out the possible results and people went home and took steps to cut back on carbon emissions, then both were important.First I was stimulated and saw a need depicted it . Second the people saw the work recognized the problem and took action or at least thought about it.As for the rest of the argument stated here I will not get into and leave that to the intellectuals to philosophically masturbate and try to impress the rest of us. I am too old for this shit and have commissions to work on and yes even though they are commissions and may seem void of any message or just mean a paycheck to me they still have value as art because they have meaning to the people I do them for.Enjoy your discussion .Bye
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Hi Jasun:

* This really isn't too hard to figure out. It's the amount of work involved, for instance, that I think is a quality and worthy of merit in someone's art.

If someone takes a paintbrush, and either by hand (or foot) tosses out a sketch worthy of the most accomplished kindergarten finger-painter, I'm not going to call that art.

But others might, and that is them.

Your work, for instance, birdhouses and jewelry should be held in high regard because you are serving three purposes, you are making art, accessories, and implements.

Your art is =FUNCTIONAL= I can't even claim that with my writings and stuff.
So you shouldn't be frightened nor feel persecuted by this group.

Like philosophy, we will always question definition.
Jasun100 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012
Thank you and I don't feel persecuted it is just that I have had this discussion with others innumerable times. I have just gotten to the point where it doesn't matter I know what art is to me and what I go through to create it. Between you and I; I appreciate art if I can see some kind of thought and technical ability went into the creating of a piece. It took me a long time to appreciate what it was that Jackson Pollack was doing when he did his paint spattering and dripping and to me I think it was more about spontaneous creation than anti-art. On the other hand we both know Jackson was a drunk and may have stumbled upon it had a happy accident and Peggy Guggenheim loved it and a legend was born. I really feel we should be careful however in what we say about others work especially when they are younger or just starting out because we do not want to discourage others from the pursuit of art.Art has been very good for me it has rewarded me helped me through difficult and made me think about things I probably never would have thought about.I have also learned a lot of things in doing research for different projects.I just think we get caught up too much in defining things and and cloud the joy that art brings.As for my birdhouses I doubt that any birds are going to be making use of them:but you never know.
dw817 Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I guess the only thing I'm prejudice of is when someone does something, clearly amateur, and it is lauded and applauded as masterful work that no-one else could reproduce.

That kinna gets to me.
Kenziiquinn Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Student General Artist
Nice article :D but I couldn't help but notice the slight unappreciative tone when mentioning some artist's later work, like Pollacks dripping paint pieces and the Erased De Kooniong Drawing. I really think those pieces defined the Post Modern era, and therefore to me aren't pieces that are defined as "the artist's later work that is overrated and don't define conceptual art well".
I think conceptual art has a wide rage of definitions these days, just like the definition of art.
Hetronicle Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012
p=ce² motive and opportunity [heh]
anamartist Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
I think it could be heavily argued that all art is concept art. While some concepts are crude in their forms, their meant to be interpreted in their own unique ways- through your mind. That's the beauty of art, it can be thought of in different ways, but then there's some pieces that are meant to be a cool image. Not to convey an idea, instead it just is meant to be bad ass. I think the most crude form of concept art are those opaque canvases that people paint in a monochromatic manner and it sells for half a million. I'll never be able to wrap my head around the fact that people can look at these pieces and call it art. Anybody can paint a canvas one color and not convey an idea, they just use it for decoration. But some people say "I see aliens," and break the bank.
tilli123 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
All art is conceptual art. others may not see the meaning in the painting and it may not have any significants to anyone. But to the artist it could mean an entiarly diffrent thing. A child age 6 could draw a picture of his mum and it could look like a scrible and to the adult eye would not mean anything but to the child eye he would love it as it is something thats means the most to him. It doeesnt matter if you can draw or paint or take photographs what matters it the awseome feeling and enjoyment you get out of it. Art is like people we judge eachother by looks and not by the soal meaning.
peterfelton Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012
All Art is conceptual. You can talk till you are blue in the face, and some will no doubt try, but what is the point of trying to pursuade others if they cannot see what in front of them. It's like arguing the existance of God.
mankoneko Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
All art is conceptual art. We are conceptual beings. Without them we wouldn't be able to think and we wouldn't speak. The whole question is whether we, as spectators, are made to glean out the concept for ourselves, as with, say, Mondrian. Or if it concept is more easy to see, like in the Mona Lisa. Although it doesn't really matter how "obvious" the idea seems to be, we always try to make it more meaningful, more complicated. Of course the Mona Lisa isn't just a pretty picture of a lady!
When I look at art I think "does it work?" in the sense that I like the way it is constructed. For me, it is enough that it is pretty or masterful. Beauty and artistry are wonderful concepts in themselves. If there is an "in joke" that I get as well, like with Duchamps urinal, that's just an added bonus. I don't "get" Pollock at all, but I think his action paintings are wonderful.
I went to an art gallery in London once (I think it was Tate Modern, though I can't quite remember) and there were lots of awesome things there. Like the Chapman brothers scenes from hell, and Tracy Emins bed. Along with loads and loads of beautiful paintings and traditional art. But the thing that I found most fun was the fact that here and there in the gallery were wax statues in the form of museum guests. So from time to time we found ourselves staring intently at an immobile figure, admiring the detail, when suddenly the person turned the page of the book he was reading and we realized we'd been staring at a tourist. It made us a part of the whole thing because if we would have stood still for a while somebody would be bound to come and stare at us too. It wasn't particularly pretty (although it was very well crafted) but it was a brilliant idea. And if the idea shines through, if you can feel the concept behind it, it doesn't matter if you "get it" or not. If it "works" it's good.
OLDEREALMS Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012
Some conceptual art just leaves me thinking,' are you for real' BUT there are others that are just pure genius, and of course you need artistic skill to execute the art work otherwise you couldnt do it ! Its the ideas behind the work, and the different ways/media that they use to express their vision. I have seen some amazing assamblage boxes that are considered conceptual art for their meaning to the artist. I think its a delight and we need more of it.
Shannon-Sweeney Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I have mixed feelings about conceptual art. Before finding DA I didnt care for it much I always saw it as kind of just boring to me it was people just throwing anything together and people who wanted to say they were in to art saying stuff they didnt really mean cause they didnt understand it. They always say it makes you feel but they can never tell you what it is that the feel and they never elaborate they just say what everybody else says and to me thats the complete opposite of what art is. To me art should make you think or feel or both even if that a small giggle at a funny picture.
Don't get me wrong I can't always put words to how I feel but at least I feel it.
That being said, since finding DA I have seen some amazing conceptual art and have had some ideas of my own since (although im not a conceptual artist) so what I would say is give it a chance cause its true that not everything is art but you miss out if you take a whole section, genre or catagory and dissmiss it completly theres some amazing work out there among the junk.
nofna Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Everything else is commercial art. You're either advertising yourself or a company, or trying to talk in a non-lingual language.
HarlequindeSade Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
This is a tough one to answer, mostly because conceptual art is not something I usually pay attention to. Now don't get me wrong, I have as much respect for these artists as I do any type of artist, but my feelings are mixed. On one hand, I must give them credit for being able to make certain people contemplate images that we normally would not contemplate. This style-if done well-prooves that raw image does not have to be sensational or shocking to captivate us. In my case, I've seen some images that remind me of my childhood, whether they be things I've loved, or outright hated about it. To me, this is where much of the power of conceptual art comes from; it triggers images and memories in our mind, and we attach meanings to them, for better or for worse. Of course, this isn't necessarily the case for all conceptual art. A picture may very well simply entertain us, or make us feel enthralled, such as a picture of a person, or a statue.

On the other hand, not everyone readily follows this proposed (and I said proposed, please) formula of attaching meaning to conceptual art, as they may be seeking something with a deliberate meaning set down for them, preferring to have something predetermined for them to brood over. This isn't a bad thing, but merely a case of different strokes for different folks. Also, my concern is not so much the idea that a conceptual artist is a 'con man' but that said artist is an amateur. Not everything is conceptual art. There is a difference between actually taking a genuine picture of something or painting a portrait and just snapping photos for people to post comments about. Once a person starts making 'art' of everything they see (one chair in the sun too many, you could say), one should wonder if they are making art, or just trying to keep their profile full, among other things.

So what is my opinion overall? While I do respect and support conceptual art and its various artists, I cannot say that I would look at it regularly. I would, however, urge any aspiring conceptual artist to carefully consider the differences between actual conceptual 'art' and photos for their DA profile or I-phone or whatever. Other than that, I'm for it.
kdso Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Sistheo Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011
If God Almighty doesn't like your art, you are that discarded urinal.
MizzMAB Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Art is in the eye of the beholder. What you see, what I see, what some random person sees, may all be totally different things. Aesthetics and ideals of beauty may be influenced by current cultural concepts, but in the end, they are all opinions.
NANASHIMA Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011   Photographer
I think a good example for both arguments here is lomography. As kind of a new art form, it's drawn criticism from the professional photographic community because at first glance it seems it doesn't require any real technical skill; the images are often blurred, streaked, off-color and exactly what professional photographers try to avoid. Lomographers defend their hobby, though, promoting a "shoot, don't think" mentality, and sometimes claiming that their images are superior because they capture the raw emotion of the moment as opposed to the cold and detached, if technically superior, photographs of the professionals.

I think that both sides have a point. It's immature to reject a new field of photography simply because it might be off-putting and seemingly unaesthetic at first; that being said, lomographers have to realize that photography is an art form that requires years of dedicated study to truly perfect, and waving around an eighty dollar plastic camera while taking pictures of your food isn't going to garner you any respect in the real photographic community.

My point is that art doesn't necessarily HAVE to contain real technical talent to get one's point across, but there's definitely something to be said about devoting oneself to a field of study and striving to become as accomplished in that field as possible. Also, I feel that acquiring real technical skill usually allows the artist to convey their message more clearly and results in a superior final product.

Finally, this is coming from the son of a very, very good professional photographer. I'm quite interested in lo-mo too, so please don't think this point was intended to persuade anyone into either side of the ongoing debate. I just wanted to offer my reaction to the journal.
GleamingGrin Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm a bit disappointed to see that Jaime's work is being used as the centerpiece image for this article. Jaime, Mirabai, and Willow worked in an artistic collaboration to create an absolutely stunning piece. If one were to read the postings by any of these artists with regard to the images created in this photo shoot then you'd know there was an extensive back story and substantial meaning to each and every one.

To that point, just because the artist's meaning is not readily evident (or in Michelangelo's church commissioned works, not positive) is no reason to write the art off as lacking meaning. Yes, there are boundaries being tested regarding what is and isn't art, but that is no excuse for automatically labeling pieces you don't understand as without meaning or to even go so far as to dismiss it from the artistic realm completely.

While I appreciate the controversy being discussed, the whole discussion has been far too black and white to be of value in a real world application.
helenavampire Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Student Digital Artist
Brilliant :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
Monkiy Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011
I think it takes a certain amount of skill to get the concept across though. To be able to present something, that usually doesn't involve words, in a way that people understand it is not a common ability.
your-Rosebush-bandit Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
i am beyond angry i just typed an hour worth of stuff to prove my opion on this but this evil computer just(enter curse word here) the whole thing! So any what i dont get why we are arguing about this(i'm really sad about the computer) Art is in the eye of the boholder(i have to give a short version of what i typed by like 75%) Its not a con till police or laywers have to/are involed. Art can have a message, a meaning, an emotion, a feeling, a story or just be really deep. People will make their own meaning or whatever about what they see. Art is what we make it.-trying not to write a post article about this article(glad i didn't) I was going to write this little metaphore about newspaper and art styles and not mattering what style it is. i was also going to type about how there are alot of differ typest of artist and what they do makes them so because someone thinks/believes it is.
your-Rosebush-bandit Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I understand that for lots of people art is just a message or a meaningn and for other people its supose to be emotional and deep, but why does it matter why can't it be something that make some one stop and look or think, if someone likes it i say its art, if someone stops and glance its art. If it gave you a feeling(sadness, sickness, happieness, annoyance, so on). Someone out there said it was art and even for a flicker someone did, said, thought, or felt it. -this doesn't mean it always that case, but heck I bearly get why we are descusing this.(if pics. of newspaper, a painting of a newspaper, a skeatch of newspaper, sculpture of a newspaper is art. I'm not getting why newspaper its self or any other way can't be art. Let's remeber there are all kinds of of people be called artist(and what they do makes them that-what ever thier art is). As for cons its a con if police or laywers get involed and no not everything someone says is art because not everone is an artist(and people say, think and do a lot of things they don't mean... so not everything is art)- oh great now I'm preaching...
eliyani Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Student Digital Artist
For myself, I am a storyteller through and through, and for me a good, truly magnificent piece of art communicates something, whether it is a story, a social message, politics etc and usually is good technically. Concept can be good, but it runs the risk in the wrong hands of being presumptuous and sometimes I feel like it can allow the artist to get away with shoddy skills and art for the sake of the "message/intent".

True art is a marriage of both "technical skill" and "idea".

Technical skill with no heart/passion/love is shallow and meaningless, and becomes just a work of appearance. It evokes nothing and that to me makes it useless.

Idea with no skill will be laughed at, scoffed at and generally be ignored and the artist can be stamped as a "wannabe artiste". I'll admit that I've done this, and there is a lot of art that I've disliked because I feel that it was a half-hearted attempt to be meaningful and "artistic" and it comes off feeling fake.

Idea, I like to think is the soul and the aesthetics of whatever the piece is (3D sculpture, painting, sketch, graphics) ,is the body.

Both are important, and it's wrong to dismiss either. Saying that the artistic skill doesn't matter just tells me that the person is too lazy to practice and learn and them just depending on the idea is a shortcut.
kdso Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Pancakemind Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think that this piece of art is extremely deep and meaningful because it speaks to the inner workings of the mind -> [link]
Superfreexa Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011
I think, that while all art is subjective and can hardly have a solid definition, if you really need to think about the property and the idea of the art, then it becomes a message, more than art.

If the artist spends hours making the art look nice, and it is a joy to look at; that is art.

Something which could take seconds, and can be interpreted any which way, does not seem to be art.

1) If there is nothing to see - how is it art?

2) Seems like more of a message than art.

3) Not entirely sure what the point is here o_o

4) Don't know how it relates :p

I don't, however say that it is a waste of space and stupid and deserves to be hated. I remain passive to all who support it and those who create it.

"Conceptual art" seems to mess with my head, which just doesn't seem right for a piece of art.
KeeperoftheAnkh Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Professional General Artist
art is provocative, emotional, interesting, and engaging... concept art is great for displaying a raw sensation in seemingly meaningless but beautiful imagery, showing the purity of concept, naked and exposed.
RiverSquid Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I much prefer the other term for Concept Art.

But, I guess if this art is interesting to look at, then I guess by my definition it is art. If it's interesting and evokes an emotion, then I class is at art.
Br0wnnie Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I've always felt that Art is essentially the skill of an artist to portray his point of view across to other people. Therefore, art without some sort of meaning isn't really "art". Same way I believe that someone painting a glass bowl well enough to make it look real is an amazing painter, but if it doesn't leave the viewer with some sort of emotion or thought, or at least showcase some essence of the artist, then it is just a well made painting and not art.

However, most of the charm of art is lost if the factor of aesthetics is removed. Art should evoke thought and emotion on it's own, not be shoved in your face as an obscure concept and nothing else. Taking the beauty, and the work required to create art, away from Art and it's like you've killed it's soul.
RaphaelGrizotte Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Sem´´ duvida a ,,muito mais dentro da expressão, dentro da ideia, dentro da forma... resumindo a muito mais dentro que fora da arte!Arte não é somente contemplação é tudo que nos engloba e a envolve.
RustNSplinters Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Art is meant to invoke deep feelings and show us things from another person's perspective to the fullest extent. The concept is sometimes far more important than what it's made of or how well it's done. Looking into another person's mind and thoughts would be impossible if not for the amazing world of art. That's how we can read someone's mind, we can tell what they are really all about. The concept is probably the most important part of art in history.

Pictures meant for disgusting sexual fantasies however, do not count as art. It wasn't meant to spread a message, to display an ideal or character, it is meant for primitive pleasures rather than mind-provoking ones. It is a perversion of the real meaning of art, and it saddens me that so many mediocre porn drawings are scattered about every subject on Deviantart.
SpicyWonton Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist Artist
Very interesting.
I find that this is quite true.
I find some artist who has fantastic art, and yet someone else who has put a filter over an image gets large recognition.
GeanieBeanie Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
yaaaaay i love learning about this stuff
XXtraPrince Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011
It is the artist's place to state, by word or deed, "This is art." And it is the viewer's (listener's) place to accept it or reject it on its perceived merits. No artist has an intrinsic right to appreciation or acclaim based on his own definition of "art", nor does he have such a right to funding or exposure on that basis. Artists conceive, and execute the concept; society may then applaud, ignore or disparage the result with an eye (ear) to their cultural values, needs or preferences, just like any product.
Xelael Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
And what a joke, distorting the Sistine Chapel like that to make it seem like Michelangelo didn't care about it. Do you even know why it's the Pope's vanity project? Stupid contemporary artists..
Xelael Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
Duchamp never intented to be an artist. Stop regarding him as such. Greatest troll of the art world is still talked about nowadays, and in all diferent places. Depressing.
Add a Comment:

:iconhq: More from hq

Featured in Collections

Editorials - Favs by Bnspyrd

journals by SophieBrigitteXD

HQ by JamminJo

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
December 7, 2011


56,566 (1 today)
1,013 (who?)