When I had to decide where to go to college, I simply could not afford to go to the art school that I wanted to attend. The art school’s tuition was more than 4 times the cost of the tuition at the public university I eventually attended. Luckily, I fell in love with watercolor painting, and my school had a robust art curriculum. I ended up taking a lot of my classes with one professor I found particularly inspirational.
During my undergraduate days, I often talked to him about my progress, hopes, etc. On one occasion I mentioned how I always wondered what my art education would have been like if I attended a pure art school. I recognized that I had great art professors at my school, and I had a huge studio space, and thoughtful, regular critiques from my peers and the professors – who could ask for anything more? He then mentioned that the previous year he attended his daughter’s graduation show at the art school I had wanted to attend. It was not a solo show, but rather a group show of all of the painting majors. There were no paintings. Rather, the show consisted of conceptual pieces, performance pieces, and installations.
At the time I thought, “thank God I did not go there . . . I am still a student and there is so much more I need to know about the basics.” I figured that the art school’s faculty focused on conceptual art practices rather than the basics of painting—composition, drawing, color theory, etc.
Last week, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Foundation announced the finalist for its Hugo Boss Prize 2012. This is a prestigious (and valuable at $100,000) art prize to recognize significant achievement in contemporary art.
Here is a list of the finalist—all of whom, to varying degrees, are conceptual artists.
- Trisha Donnelly (b. 1974, San Francisco)
- Rashid Johnson (b. 1977, Chicago)
- Qiu Zhijie (b. 1969, Zhangzhou, China)
- Monika Sosnowska (b. 1972, Ryki, Poland)
- Danh Vo (b. 1975, Bà Ria, Vietnam)
- Tris Vonna-Michell (b. 1982, Southend-on-Sea, United Kingdom)
Namely, these artists (and previous winners, such as Matthew Barney) focus more on the concept of the artistic practice than any particular dexterity that they may have in creating a particular piece. So–arguably–many of them could use assistants and allow museums and galleries to install their works, because it is the concept that counts.
This shortlist brought me back to my questions about art school and artistic practices. If we focus on concepts, is that enough? I’ve been moved by particularly original conceptual pieces that showed the artist’s unique voice in a new and emotionally truthful manner. I’ve also been annoyed by artists that rehash previous ideas in conceptual arts and then hide behind pseudo intellectualism to trick viewers into thinking the artist is honest (none of the artist in this shortlist fall into this category).
If it is only the concept that counts, and this is where art continues to find its stars, should art schools focus on developing ideas rather than skills? Do you still need to learn the basics – should you learn how to draw and paint to go down this conceptual art road where you can eventually forget how to draw and paint (like good Jazz)? Does this allow anyone a path to be an artist? With enough deep thinking, couldn’t anyone learn this trade (is it now a trade)? Maybe my professor’s daughter and her classmates had deep artistic training in the basics, and by the time that they graduated felt a need to express themselves differently.
Does a vigorous art community need to embrace both the traditional artists and conceptual artists? Do artists progress toward conceptual arts, or is it just one tool in the ever growing tool box of artists? What are your thoughts?
None of these artists are “conceptual” in the sense to which you refer. Have you ever seen Danh Vo’s sculptures? He knows how to make sculptures technically well; he’s mastered that craft. He knows how to make beautiful things that are also based on something other than trying to make a true-to-life representation of a thing.
I don’t think any of these artists would shy away from the label of conceptual artist in the sense I refer to it. To appreciate their art to the fullest you need to appreciate the ideas — the aesthetic appeal is secondary (most of them do marry both in masterful ways to show a unique, honest voice — in particular Danh Vo and Monika Sosnowska). Craft and technical skill goes towards mimicking, which is not fine art and not the foundation I was talking about. I am focusing on art practices and how they are taught. Should professors/art teachers spend less time on the traditional artistic skill, so that they can focus on developing the artist’s unique thoughts (maybe without being overly influenced by the past)? Or do you need the traditional background and education to have substantive ideas that will resonate with viewers, and then you can choose what tool in the tool box to speak to your viewers?
Conceptual art, as you mention it to be a “focus more on the concept of the artistic practice than any particular dexterity that they may have in creating a particular piece.” I have an issue with this, not just because this is not what Conceptual art, as a historical project is, but it’s based on magnitude. How can you tell how much of an artwork is idea-based and how much of it skill-based? These artists do have technical skill and years of training in many cases. Matthew Barney who you mention has an incredible cinematic skill; there’s no way that anyone could say about his work, “My kid could do that.”
Art schools still teach the fundamentals. Even the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, which is probably considered a bastion of avant-garde art education, consists of Bauhaus-era fundamentals courses in things like drawing and sculpture. Everyone is expected to receive training in the fundamentals. It’s what’s done with that afterward that’s different.
Please provide your definition of conceptual art – I am struggling with the issues you are having. My definition is in line with the practices of Yves Klein, Judy Chicago, Félix González-Torres, and Joseph Kosuth (and of course Marcel Duchamp). In fact it’s in line with Joseph Kosuth’s Art after Philosphy essay – are you saying the definition of conceptual art has grown outside of these reference points? Are you saying that I over-simplified these artists’ practices? I do take exception to your inference that my questions and observations imply that the Hugo Boss short list artists are not gifted artists—or an implication that I have a simple view about art where I would say “my kid could do that.” My favorite piece that I viewed this past year was Love Lettering, 2002, by the brother and sister art team Rivane and Sergio Neuenschwander. Rivane is a brilliant artist, and—as with most successful conceptual art pieces—a child or an untrained artist could not have randomly thought of or executed a piece like Lover Lettering. And mentioning Mathew Barney’s cinematic skill does not address my comments – cinematic skill has nothing to do with dexterity. My reference to dexterity is traditional ability to render imagery through drawing and painting – nothing more or less. My questions focused on whether an introduction to drawing and painting (and design and craft if it is Bauhaus-era fundamentals course) adds value to an artist who wants to develop the practices of many successful contemporary artists focused more on ideas/installations/or performance. These practices have been engrained in our culture so long that a high school student deciding to go to art school could have a well-formed opinion about what practices he or she wants to explore. These questions and the article are just questions – I am not voicing an opinion one way or the other.
Addtional thoughts — is the purity that I am looking for re definitions and concerns re medium specificity just not the reality of contemporary practices and criticism? I understand that the historical movement of conceptualisim may have a program that where Gonzalez Torres and Barney do not fit nicely, but can I really not use that history as a reference point for them and where the focus of the art community turns? Just some more questions.