Conceptual Art Sucks
Stuckist research is slowly getting beyond the rhetoric and ranting.
So Conceptual art sucks because.............
It gives nothing to the viewer beyond its immediate impact.
What is presented is a new idea. Often this idea is very interesting; A new material (Damian Hirst made a cast of his own head out of frozen milk)or introducing elements/structures previously unaccepted in the gallery (like Tracy Emins Bed).
So You've walked into the gallery to see Tracy Emin's "Bed 2". What you are confronted with is an image of reality. Crumpled sheets, used cigarettes, Vodka bottles, underwear, condoms.
This was a successful work for conceptual art - It challenges our notion of what is reality. It plays around with our sensibilities, makes you feel like a pervert.
But what next?
What happens once you realise that this scene is nothing new. All that has changed is the context. Instead of your bedroom its the gallery.
It leaves you cold. You can write an essay in an art exam, You can create a critical response in the context of the psychological commentary of the artist's work. Great
But what the fuck happens next? .....
Nothing. This is why conceptual art creates comments like:
"but all he's done is hung up a pig carcass agains a white canvas
...I don't get it"
The problem is you do get it and then you pass beyond it. It no longer has an aristic purpose until the next viewer comes along and it evokes the same response.
posted by Luca at 1:58 AM
9 Comments:
That's a good point. Just about the picture, what does that neon sign say? Is the sign and the framed picture things in the background part of the piece, or is the bed just whacked in the middle of the room?
Although I prefer conceptual art over most other forms of art, even though when I see an example of one I still say "what the fuck's going on here?", using a pig carcass is going too far, especially if it didn't die naturally, cannibalistic bastards. But yeah, it's just disrespectful in my opinion, I wouldn't mind dropping a sack of bricks on the guy who did it either. But yeah, I guess if it causes some emotion (even murderous ones) it should be considered art. But that douche who used dead people in his 'art', like dead naked old guys playing chess, and a pregnant woman with her stomach cut open so you could see her fetus, is just pushing too far.
Neon Sign is seperate as is the small framed pictures on the wall.
The bed was exhibited as part of the "Turner Prize"for conceptual art which is a Brittish Art prize.
Yeah The pig carcass example was just put in there to start trouble.
The corpse exhibit...let me get back to you on that one
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So you ask "what the fucks going on here?" and then you work it out.
Then What??
Well generally I don't even bother to work it out, I just go away. Then a couple years later when I'm, wait for it, smarter, I'll be sitting on the toilet or something and I'll go "Oh, so that's what he was saying..."
...or 'her' to keep the feminists happy. God damn feminists, almost as bad as hippies.
Hey, comments about anti feminists, spark my feminist within, Don't make me bring her out...
The problem is this - you say "fuck art", "art is dead" - and you are saying what Warhol et al said in the 1970's. You say "bring back the soul", which presupposes that there was something of soul in the first place.- But what if all art is for, is for this? For getting agrivated, for feeling out of the loop?
Post a Comment
<< Home