Making Sense of Conceptual Art.

“The year’s 1917, I just been ‘anded the second edition of The Blind Man right, I come across an article called “The Richard Mutt Case” right, it’s about some urinal being accepted as art, a urinal as art! I mean come on, you ‘gotta be kidding. A urinal as art, never. A beautiful landscape, a lovely picture of a river or a portrait, that’s art mate, these are beautiful. Well I guess it all depends on what you define beauty as, but still a urinal is something of practical use, not art. Oh hang on…well it says ‘ere:

“He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.”

So what he’s like tryin’ to do is say that anything can be art, I dunno though you know? Like, well, I guess it all depends on how you define art, but I mean I’ve always defined art as like, a nice picture something that takes skill ‘n talent you know? What’s that? It’s more aesthetics, I’m not really sure what aesthetics are…how a picture looks, oh, right. Well yeah like, I mean, yeah I want pictures to look nice. So yeah, like, I think pictures that look nice are art.”

Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, 1917.

Though usually the general public often stop their thinking after the first paragraph, I was lucky enough to record a human braving the entire thought process, though after the above interview Barry did have to take a lie down for several hours, he did in fact come to a certain conclusion. That, for his whole life, he had simply connoted the word and idea of art with simple aesthetics. Aesthetics being the creation and appreciation of beauty, something which he had yet to realise was created by the social and political zeitgeist that surrounded him. I proceeded to discuss with Barry his view of aesthetics, he had previously mentioned his interest in art which includes naturally beautiful and awe-inspiring landscapes and realist paintings, I asked him when was the last time he had actually seen a river, or landscape like those in Turner and Constable’s work, Barry said not recently at all. This is the issue I wish to address; perhaps you could call it a justification for Duchamp’s urinal for those who are not Art-literate. I do not believe Duchamp’s urinal needs to be justified; I myself am part of the elite.

The main argument for Duchamp’s Urinal (or Fountain) not being art is that it is a urinal, this is a difficult logical problem to get one’s head around, but I believe I am right in thinking that the problem lies within the public’s idea of art being in direct relation to talent, skill and labour, which is a pro-utilitarian statement in itself. What I am trying to say is that: the general public, those who are only aware of mainstream art due to mainstream publications or media, classify art as a two or three dimensional object in-keeping with their subjective opinion of what beauty is, whilst also retaining the physical aspect of something that only a certain amount of talent could create, or the very least a certain amount of time, patience and meticulous attention could create. Therefore, the problem does not actually lie within the Urinal not being art, but those who have viewed its idea of art being uninformed and conjectural i.e. the public’s view of art comes from a crowd-based ignorance, or ignorance of the many, which in time becomes so known it becomes subjective fact. Another problem being the black and white logic of the public (False Dilemma), either something is, or is not Art. There is no middle ground where the public is involved, there is no: “could be”, or, “can be if”. The difficulty here being that black and white logic such as this means once a definition of art is reached which fulfils enough meaning within a member of the general public’s head, nothing else is needed. E.g. If art is a 2D or 3D object in-keeping with their subjective idea of beauty, then a urinal, by a matter of personal fact cannot be art.

The above covers why the general public think Duchamp’s Urinal or any other conceptual art piece which does not fit in with their subjective idea of beauty is not art. I will continue to explain why it is, Duchamp’s Urinal that is, and any other conceptual art, in fact I shall intend to cover all conceptual art and justify to the cries of the general public why it is art. As I have already covered the general public have created a very comfortable idea of what they think art is, now I cannot contest one’s opinion, there is art I do not like, however I’m not sure there is anything I couldn’t call art in the correct circumstances. Art is widely categorized and defined as something which reflects life in a visual way; some say it is the communication of emotion. One thing it definitely is is a form of communication; art communicates something to the audience. More often than not art will reflect the society it has been created within, though not always factually correct to the political and social discourse of the time. If one was to look at one of John Constable’s paintings, perhaps his most famous The Hay Wain, one would question whether or not everything was as lovely as Constable makes it out to be, especially in a rural farming community in the 1800’s, I for one believe that what Constable had depicted, three horses pulling a hay wain through a river, would have been excessively hard work, and most likely a dirty and exhausting lifestyle. This however is Romanticism, to romanticise about the past as if they didn’t have the everyday troubles we have, they most definitely did, they were just not depicted. E.g. people shat, fucked and vomited before 1917. I will continue to use The Hay Wain reference throughout the rest of this essay, so if you be so kind as to tittle to your front room and look at the tired print hanging from your wall.

The Hay Wain, John Constable, 1821.

“There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to an expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.” - Sol Lewitt

Here Lewitt sums up what I said at the beginning of the essay, the general public has become accustomed to an emotional kick, though I would extend this to also a certain higher level of subjective beauty, skill and talent from the artist and the piece. However, as I have discussed with The Hay Wain, this is purely romanticism to a larger extent, not just with an image of the past, but the romanticism of the entirety of aesthetics and human history. The general public enjoys pictures which depict events from history in a realistic way, or exercises in pure talent. However, Art, with a capital A is not just that, as the definition goes it reflects society and emits human emotion. The question one needs to ask themselves is not only why do I find this beautiful? But what is my societal and political backdrop, what is there to reflect from?

“My opinion is that new needs new techniques. And the modern artists have found new ways and new means of making their statements. It seems to me that the modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb, the radio, in the old forms of the Renaissance or of any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique.”

The rivers are gone, Stubb’s horses are close to fossilizing, Turner’s ships have long since been anchored to port, the American Dream Hopper illustrated has collapsed, the Mona Lisa has become spectacle…the Greek’s are at mercy to the acidity of rain. We no longer live in the age of marble, online forums are our gladiator battles, our epic Viking-esc destruction is no longer carried out with gunpowder but the push of a wired button. Duchamp’s Urinal may have marked the start of conceptual art, but it also marked the start of a new, industrial period of human history, filled with more technological advancements, political discourse and social upheaval than ever before. The work that was to be created because of this piece would have been created anyway, the artists were given no alternative, they were given this society, this period of human history, they have no quaint rural scenes to work with, no Austen-esque lords and ladies or existential hermits lives to articulate. They were given heroin, middle-eastern oil wars, suicide bombings, industrialization on an unhuman level, humans landing on another planet, firearms, digital obituaries, factories for the smallest of jobs, faster speeds, higher highs and almost everything humans were never evolutionary programmed to do. They were given an extract of human history that shall be looked upon as chaotic, unnatural and greedy. Set aside your ideas of what art should be, what art should be articulating for what is to be articulated cannot be done so in that manner, it no longer fits. The Mona Lisa is no longer of any importance; the audience viewing it however, is of the utmost.