#art, Traditional Art vs Conceptual Art

When I started uni as a Fine Arts major conceptual art, in other words, performance art, was pretty strong. We had the performances of Marina Abramović and Ulai as well as of others. And of course we all knew about the conceptual «art» of Yoko Ono. But in our art school we had no classes, nor where we ever led towards that branch of «art.» And even when I switched to the Theatre Arts Department, the university did not consider teaching classes on how to be a performance artist. And I think they had the right approach. To me, in my opinion, performance art is more akin to theatre than to art, and conceptual art is more akin to nothing. I’ve no use for it. It is simply a way for talentless «artists» to «create» art that no one understands and that says nothing important. And do not forget, these are my personal feelings and opinions. Yours might be different and I will respect them.

So, here is a comparison:

Aspect	Traditional Art	Conceptual Art
Primary Focus	Skill, technique, and aesthetics (form, color, composition, craftsmanship)	Idea, concept, or social statement; the concept is often more important than the execution
Materials/Execution	Paint, marble, bronze, canvas, musical instruments—mediums require mastery	Anything: instructions, text, objects, performance, ephemeral materials; mastery of medium is often secondary
Immediate Impact	Often visually or emotionally striking; can communicate without explanation	Often obscure; may require reading instructions or context to understand the meaning
Accessibility	Easily appreciated by general audiences; universal visual or auditory appeal	Often appeals to a niche audience familiar with art theory*; can feel confusing or silly to outsiders
Longevity	Objects are permanent or durable; intended to last for centuries	Often ephemeral, performative, or instructional; may exist only as documentation or memory
Emotional Engagement	Direct: beauty, awe, empathy, or emotional resonance	Indirect: intellectual engagement, provocation, or philosophical questioning*.
Risk of Misunderstanding	Lower: people “get it” on sight	High: without explanation, work may seem meaningless or trivial
Evaluation Criteria	Technical skill, composition, beauty, originality	Originality of idea, conceptual clarity, provocation, challenge to norms
Famous Examples	Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Monet, Beethoven, Stravinsky	Yoko Ono, Fluxus artists, Duchamp, Sol LeWitt, Abramović
Criticism	Can be conservative or formulaic; sometimes prioritizes aesthetics over ideas	Can appear pretentious, naive, or inaccessible; sometimes “idea-heavy” and lacking sensory impact

---

* I strongly disagree as I think it is pretentious, naive, meaningless and a useless experiment in elitism displayed as mediocrity. It might be interesting for the performer or the conceptual «artist» but pure rubbish to the rest of us.

What they teach at uni (nowadays) is that traditional art emphasises skill, execution and sensory impact (and I agree). And that conceptual art emphasises ideas and provocation, often at the cost of immediate clarity or beauty. Well, only very few of them bring forth ideas or provocation, some are just self-indulging machinations by talent-less «artists» having us all on.