Comments on: Making Conceptual Art Accessible http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/05/making-conceptual-art-accessible/ art + space + audience Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:44:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Rajio http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/05/making-conceptual-art-accessible/#comment-260 Rajio Thu, 15 May 2008 15:40:01 +0000 http://www.marissaneave.com/?p=58#comment-260 I agree, I suspect the problem is a curratorial one most of all. Museums seem to have dealt with it already though, going to great lenghts to contextualize exhibits. sometimes the contextualization and educational preamble is more substantial than the actual exhibit. I agree, I suspect the problem is a curratorial one most of all. Museums seem to have dealt with it already though, going to great lenghts to contextualize exhibits. sometimes the contextualization and educational preamble is more substantial than the actual exhibit.

]]> By: Marissa http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/05/making-conceptual-art-accessible/#comment-259 Marissa Thu, 15 May 2008 15:15:28 +0000 http://www.marissaneave.com/?p=58#comment-259 Interesting questions. I think the physical manifestations of conceptual works exist for display and distribution purposes, which are obviously key components of art systems as we know them today. I think the physical manifestation will remain relevant as long as we understand digital distribution to be less "real" than a physical installation, which in time will surely change. With the graffiti example, I think that has a lot to do with its history of counterculture and its desire to be the voice of and for marginalized groups. Surely there is art that aims to do the same thing... and I accept that work does exist for a certain pocket of people. My argument is that spaces that advocate education and understanding shouldn't be showing work that isn't for everyone to understand. Conceptual work is such that you CAN'T get it unless you know the background information. So it's just irresponsible and disrespectful to the artist to leave people guessing. But the question of physical/digital is one I'm going to think about more. Thanks for raising that issue. Interesting questions. I think the physical manifestations of conceptual works exist for display and distribution purposes, which are obviously key components of art systems as we know them today. I think the physical manifestation will remain relevant as long as we understand digital distribution to be less “real” than a physical installation, which in time will surely change.

With the graffiti example, I think that has a lot to do with its history of counterculture and its desire to be the voice of and for marginalized groups. Surely there is art that aims to do the same thing… and I accept that work does exist for a certain pocket of people.

My argument is that spaces that advocate education and understanding shouldn’t be showing work that isn’t for everyone to understand. Conceptual work is such that you CAN’T get it unless you know the background information. So it’s just irresponsible and disrespectful to the artist to leave people guessing.

But the question of physical/digital is one I’m going to think about more. Thanks for raising that issue.

]]> By: Rajio http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/05/making-conceptual-art-accessible/#comment-258 Rajio Thu, 15 May 2008 15:03:37 +0000 http://www.marissaneave.com/?p=58#comment-258 <blockquote>Some of my favourite artworks are conceptual works that I have never even seen.</blockquote> do you think the physical manifestation is going to remain relevant? can the very idea of the work be enough? can a rendering/photoshop of an installation hold more power than a possible physical incarnation? Also, RE the article, I'm reminded of some graffiti art for instance, where the text is intentionally abstracted in such a way that the textual message is hidden to most and only reveals itself to those who 'speak the language' ... sometimes if you can't read it the message isnt 'for' you.

Some of my favourite artworks are conceptual works that I have never even seen.

do you think the physical manifestation is going to remain relevant? can the very idea of the work be enough? can a rendering/photoshop of an installation hold more power than a possible physical incarnation?

Also, RE the article, I’m reminded of some graffiti art for instance, where the text is intentionally abstracted in such a way that the textual message is hidden to most and only reveals itself to those who ’speak the language’ … sometimes if you can’t read it the message isnt ‘for’ you.

]]>