The more conceptual an artwork becomes, the more impossible it is to understand it, or derive meaning from it, just by looking at the piece. Conceptual art is driven by idea, and these ideas are often manifested in ways wherein aesthetic considerations take a back seat. This is not to say that conceptual work isn’t beautiful, or that aesthetic considerations are not taken at all. But when a work needs to be understood beyond its form or visualization, written material needs to be provided.

Many galleries accompany their exhibitions with essays (separate from curatorial statements) and I think this is a great practice that all galleries that show any work that sits on the expansive spectrum of conceptual art should adopt. One of my biggest frustrations in visiting art spaces is when I am given access only to a beautiful postcard, with nothing on it.

I’m sure that many people happily view conceptual work without wanting to ask questions or understand the full scope of the project. I support this and I do it myself, on occasion. Appreciating work merely for how it looks or for how it is installed is a perfectly acceptable practice. But spaces need to acknowledge that there are visitors interested in participating in their mandates that encourage discourse and understanding.

There remains a problem, however, in providing too much information. If an artist is willing to make their entire thesis available to gallery visitors, I think it should be available with one caveat: that it be available as a supplement to a shorter, more-likely-to-be-read article or statement that summarizes the thesis. No one is going to read 60+ pages in a gallery, nor are they going to leaf through the contents searching for answers to their questions.

Some of my favourite artworks are conceptual works that I have never even seen. This is because the idea behind the physical manifestation was verbalized in a way that made me understand how or why the piece was created.

Written material accompanying exhibitions adds value that can’t be provided by artwork alone. This value contributes to an overall understanding of the artwork and gives visitors the opportunity to formulate a more educated opinion about the work they’re looking at. If galleries indeed desire to foster understanding and discourse, I wonder how they think they’re doing this without giving visitors any basis for understanding.

The unfortunate thing is that I know a lot of people visit galleries wanting to “get” the work, and when they don’t understand, they assume it’s because they just don’t know enough about art. Art education does help, I won’t disagree, but it’s not necessary. Being in art school doesn’t help me understand conceptual work if there is no documentation. You just can’t guess what it’s about.

And I wonder… shouldn’t artists be insisting on this?

_________

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Books and Movies: The Bias of Lists
• » The Novice Voice

• BROWSE / IN art spaces
• « Books and Movies: The Bias of Lists
• » The Novice Voice