My Conceptual Dilemna

I was watching a documentary last night about the Vogel's, a modest couple who has spent the last forty-odd years collecting minimal and conceptual art at low prices from then-unknown artists from New York. Over that period they have amassed one of the most thorough and impressive conceptual art collections on the planet, including artists like Sol LeWitt, Donald Judd, Christo, and Julian Schnabel. By scrimping and saving, living modestly and having keen eye, they have transcended the stereotypical "art collector" and proven that anyne can have a museum quality collection despite their income, as long as they know what they are looking for...Anyways, that's not the point of the post (though you really should read about The Vogels' awesome story)

During that doc. they interviewed many of the artists about conceptualism and what it's about and I ran into an ever-present dilemna with the whole idea of the thing. Sol Lewitt said that conceptual art is about the idea...the idea is the main focus and the production or execution is un-important, even unnecessary. He goes further saying that the physical object isn't even needed. I've heard this before. It's pretty much the definition of conceptual art. It's not what it is, it's the idea behind it.

I always have two questions then. First, if the object and execution isn't necessary, why do it? If the message and idea is all that matter with the piece, why try to materialize that idea? Why confuse the idea with material objects that harbor misconception, generalization, and personal connection if that is not the point? Why not let the idea stand alone either through spoken word, type, or some other form? Why, if the idea is the sole point and most important part, would you put something many people will take as the subject over what you really want them to see? I realize that many will say "it's meant to symbolize the idea." and I get that...but my simple question is, if the whole point of something is a very specific, very important idea, why not make the idea obvious? (of course if the concept is supposed to be difficult to understand, the confusion may be intended so disregard those pieces in this and the next question)

The second question is, if that idea is so important, why choose such a cryptic way to display it? If the idea is as important as many artists would like to believe, why do they choose a medium that is basically jibberish to 99% of people out there? If you want to tell someone something, would you do it in a way that takes them a graduate class on philosophy before they understand?

There are many answers to this and I've even come up with some myself...my most common conclusion is that the object does matter and it is, in fact just as important as the idea. The fact that the object is not an exact representation of the concept is just as, if not more meaningful than the idea itself. The object chosen can completely change and morph the meaning of the piece...If a conceptual artist states that the object doesn't matter, I feel it would stand as a roadblock to the message. If that's intended, then the object is essential to the piece, and not just an add-on as many conceptual explanations would have you believe. I think the object and media are entirely essential to conceptual art and, if ignored, the piece risks being completely mis-represented, misunderstood and altogether, a failure.

I guess I basically come to the realization that conceptual art isn't as "out there" as it originally seems or as some conceptual artists would convince you of. Largely, I see many of the explanations as a way to place conceptual art on a pedestal. A way to say "this is larger than the physical." And I agree, it is, but i would also say that so is any other successful piece of art from any other movement. The meaning of my pieces aren't "paint on canvas" it's an idea behind the imagery. It's the meaning of the imagery...If a paint roller on the ground can mean that we live in a throw-away society, then a painting can mean the same and neither can claim to be "more true" than the other. If people get the message, no matter how it is conveyed, I would say it's a successful piece.

I suppose I'll end with this. If the object truly doesn't matter to the message, if the object truly has no effect on the idea, then don't use it. If the concept is really all that matters and needs no help from a physical object, leave it as an idea or it becomes tarnished by whatever baggage is carried by the object. However, if you realize the importance of every part of the piece, investigate what the object can mean, what it can effect, and decide that it is the representation you want for the concept, then don't deny it's importance.