Exploring Conceptual Art

Q3 Arts and Humanities

Philosophical Readings Pub Date : 2015-12-02 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.34514

D. Sasso

{"title":"Exploring Conceptual Art","authors":"D. Sasso","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.34514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"any philosophers and critics agree that Conceptual Art is distinguished not only to be a loose collection of various practices but especially for its significant contradictions that increase the theoretical controversy about it. According to the theorist Donald Brook (1972) the phrase «Conceptual Art» has different senses and it is used with a general nonacceptance. His argument is based on the following premises: (i) this obscure label refers to many kinds of processes and objects; (ii) artists’ justifications about them are vague; (iii) their writings, in many cases, are in gibberish. So defining Conceptual Art is a complex matter. Brook acknowledges that this difficulty is related to four uses of the phrase: to indicate a primacy of a conceptual approach to art in contrast to the perceptual one; to emphasise that Conceptual Art is art of ideas and not art of physical objects; to claim that it is also an artistic process based on a semantic paradox that changes art and points out the critical approach to its nature; to remark the restricted meta-activity character through which art became essentially a comment on itself. The four uses of the phrase «Conceptual Art» singled by Brook reveal a high level of ambiguity due to its use. Nominally we could use the phrase to refer to an artistic movement or a general set of new experimental practices of the 60s that don’t accept the traditional methods of art making. In the first meaning the phrase is differently coined and used by two artists, and it is not completely working if referring to other kinds of artistic movements. Conceptual Art in this case would be the name of the artistic movement initially based upon the creative activities and the critical statements of many different artists, largely American. In the second meaning instead, the phrase is used to describe a decisive tendency for the profound change of art due to the new experimental practices of the 60s that also established a large part of the successive artistic evolution until today. The controversy about Conceptual Art is corroborated by this nominal ambiguity that reflects: the uncertain nature of Conceptual Art, its invisible boundaries but, at the same","PeriodicalId":37926,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Readings","volume":"1 1","pages":"101-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Readings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

any philosophers and critics agree that Conceptual Art is distinguished not only to be a loose collection of various practices but especially for its significant contradictions that increase the theoretical controversy about it. According to the theorist Donald Brook (1972) the phrase «Conceptual Art» has different senses and it is used with a general nonacceptance. His argument is based on the following premises: (i) this obscure label refers to many kinds of processes and objects; (ii) artists’ justifications about them are vague; (iii) their writings, in many cases, are in gibberish. So defining Conceptual Art is a complex matter. Brook acknowledges that this difficulty is related to four uses of the phrase: to indicate a primacy of a conceptual approach to art in contrast to the perceptual one; to emphasise that Conceptual Art is art of ideas and not art of physical objects; to claim that it is also an artistic process based on a semantic paradox that changes art and points out the critical approach to its nature; to remark the restricted meta-activity character through which art became essentially a comment on itself. The four uses of the phrase «Conceptual Art» singled by Brook reveal a high level of ambiguity due to its use. Nominally we could use the phrase to refer to an artistic movement or a general set of new experimental practices of the 60s that don’t accept the traditional methods of art making. In the first meaning the phrase is differently coined and used by two artists, and it is not completely working if referring to other kinds of artistic movements. Conceptual Art in this case would be the name of the artistic movement initially based upon the creative activities and the critical statements of many different artists, largely American. In the second meaning instead, the phrase is used to describe a decisive tendency for the profound change of art due to the new experimental practices of the 60s that also established a large part of the successive artistic evolution until today. The controversy about Conceptual Art is corroborated by this nominal ambiguity that reflects: the uncertain nature of Conceptual Art, its invisible boundaries but, at the same

查看原文本刊更多论文

概念艺术探索

任何哲学家和评论家都同意，观念艺术的特点不仅在于它是各种实践的松散集合，而且还在于它的重大矛盾，这增加了关于它的理论争议。根据理论家唐纳德·布鲁克(Donald Brook, 1972)的说法，“观念艺术”一词有不同的含义，并且通常不被接受。他的论点基于以下前提:(i)这个模糊的标签指的是许多种过程和对象;(ii)艺术家的理由不明确;(iii)他们的作品，在许多情况下，是乱码。所以定义概念艺术是一件复杂的事情。布鲁克承认，这种困难与这个短语的四种用法有关:表明与感性方法相比，概念方法对艺术的首要地位;强调观念艺术是思想艺术，而不是实物艺术;认为它也是一种基于语义悖论的艺术过程，它改变了艺术，并指出了对艺术本质的批判途径;评论受限制的元活动特征，通过这种特征，艺术本质上成为对自身的评论。布鲁克单独使用的“概念艺术”一词的四种用法揭示了由于其使用而产生的高度模糊性。名义上，我们可以用这个短语来指代60年代的一场艺术运动或一组新的实验实践，他们不接受传统的艺术创作方法。在第一种意义上，这个短语是由两位艺术家创造和使用的不同，如果指的是其他类型的艺术运动，它就不完全有效了。在这种情况下，观念艺术将是艺术运动的名称，最初是基于许多不同艺术家的创作活动和批评声明，主要是美国艺术家。在第二种含义中，这个短语被用来描述由于60年代新的实验实践而导致的艺术深刻变化的决定性趋势，这种趋势也奠定了直到今天的连续艺术演变的很大一部分。关于观念艺术的争论被这种名义上的模糊性所证实，它反映了观念艺术的不确定性本质，它的无形边界，但同时

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Philosophical Readings Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

0.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Philosophical Readings, a four-monthly journal, ISSN 2036-4989, features articles, discussions, translations, reviews, and bibliographical information on all philosophical disciplines. Philosophical Readings is a Open Access journal devoted to the promotion of competent and definitive contributions to philosophical knowledge. Not associated with any school or group, not the organ of any association or institution, it is interested in persistent and resolute inquiries into root questions, regardless of the writer’s affiliation. The journal welcomes also works that fall into various disciplines: religion, history, literature, law, political science, computer scnfoience, economics, and empirical sciences that deal with philosophical problems. Philosophical Readings uses a policy of blind review by at least two consultants to evaluate articles accepted for serious consideration. Philosophical Readings promotes special issues on particular topics of special relevance in the philosophical debates. Philosophical Readings occasionally has opportunities for Guest Editors for special issues of the journal. Anyone who has an idea for a special issue and would like that idea to be considered, should contact the Executive editor. Philosophical Readings publishes at least 9 original researches in a calendar year.