Should conceptual «art» stand alongside movements such as Impressionism or Cubism? Does it have equal importance?
Well… Some «experts» (good grief experts!) remind us that Impressionism and Cubism changed how we see the world in paintings and that conceptual «art» changed the definition of art itself. After conceptual art, Art went from making objects to being about presenting ideas. It is a change in terms of theory, definitely not in terms of skill.
These «experts» continue by telling us that museums, galleries and universities had to adapt to conceptual «art», as well as curators, critics and audiences. They say that we all now engage differently with art and that its importance lies in influence, not in craft. I say rubbish. They…except for the public…adapted because of money. They go on and on telling us how conceptual «art» opened the door to performance, installations and other forms of socially engaged «art». They even think it influenced digital art and AI generated art. Finally they (good grief experts!) think that the art scene of today would look completely different without conceptual art’s existence.
This is something else that I entirely disagree with. Well, I really have no use for «experts». Neither do most of us. We know what we see and we like what we like and we do not need an «expert» to tell us what we should be engaging with when we wish to engage with art.
WHY I DO NOT LIKE OR ENGAGE WITH CONCEPTUAL «ART»
- No demand for skill: Unlike Impressionists or Cubists, conceptual artists didn’t need to master drawing, painting, or form. That’s why many think it’s less artistic achievement and more philosophical provocation.
- Ephemeral, often empty: A painted canvas survives centuries and conveys beauty, emotion, or vision without explanation. Conceptual art often requires a wall text, a manifesto, or a critic’s essay—otherwise it’s just a chair in a gallery.
- Uneven quality: For every powerful conceptual work, there are dozens of lazy, trivial ones—yet all are often treated with equal seriousness. That’s not true with movements like Cubism or Impressionism, where skill and innovation filtered out mediocrity.
IN CONCLUSION
If we use the example of Duchamp’s urinal, the conceptual piece titled «Fountain» to represent conceptual «art» we can all see that it took no talent to produce, no real imagination, and that it…in truth and reality…has no message to convey nor is it important in any way. And yes, many people in the «art world» at the time, e.g. Peggy Guggenheim, thought it was genius and thought of Duchamp as the greatest artist. But I think that if you just look at the piece you realise it is a ready-made object of common usage. It’s use is to get rid of bodily waste. Perhaps Duchamp, had he not been adulated by peers and others, would have remained unknown and maybe had taken his urinal home to use it for what it was intended.
Conceptual «art» is not, by any means, in the same league as the art vanguards of the 20th Century, not even equal to the worst ones. In my opinion, it should not be included in the art curriculum. Perhaps it should be as an elective in the Theatre Department or nowhere.
CHEERS
JaZzArt en València 