English
66619
 About conceptual art Author: Sol LeWitt June 1967, published in Art Forum The editor of the magazine wrote to me that he preferred to avoid the concept of the artist as a gorilla to be interpreted by civilized art critics. This should be good news for both artists and gorillas. I hope my article lives up to his expectations. Use a baseball analogy (one artist wants to knock the ball out of the park, the other wants to stay relaxed near home plate ready to hit an incoming ball with a bat). I'm honored to have this opportunity to strike out myself. I call the art I engage in conceptual art. In conceptual art, the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses conceptual forms of art, it means that all preparation and decisions are thought out in advance before making the work, and execution is nothing more than completing those plans. Ideas become machines for creating art. This art is not theoretical, nor is it an illustration of a theory. But intuitive. It contains various thinking movements of the brain and is purposeless. It often does not rely on the artist's skill as a craftsman. The goal of an artist who creates conceptual art is to make his work interesting and exciting to the viewer's brain. Therefore, he would like the work to be emotionally dry. However, there is no reason to assume that conceptual artists aim to bore their viewers. Only expecting this kind of art to have an emotional impact like the techniques commonly used in Impressionist art is the obstacle that prevents viewers from truly perceiving this kind of art. Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a work, or of multiple works, is sometimes meant to be overturned. Logic is sometimes used by artists to disguise their true intentions, to lull the reader into believing that he or she understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such as logical vs. illogical). Some ideas are conceptually very logical, but perceptually very illogical. Ideas don’t need to be complicated. Most successful ideas are simply ridiculous. Successful ideas often seem simple because they seem obvious. When it comes to ideas, artists have the freedom to allow themselves to be unexpected. Ideas are often discovered through intuition. It doesn’t really matter what the work looks like. If it had a physical representation, it would always look like something. No matter how it ends up being completed, it must start with an idea. What artists need to care about is the concept and the process of realizing it. Once the artist gives the work a physical representation, the work is open to the perception of everyone, including the artist. (I use the term perception to describe the consideration of perceptual data, the objective understanding of an idea, and the concurrent subjective interpretation of both. A work can only be interpreted when it is completed. Art that is primarily intended to be perceived by the eye would be called perceptual art rather than conceptual art. This type of art contains most of the works that focus on the retina, kinetic energy, light and color. Since the functions of concept and perception are contradictory (one is antecedent, the other after the fact), the artist will weaken his ideas by subjectively judging the work. If the artist wishes to explore his ideas thoroughly, haphazard or incidental decisions need to be reduced to a minimum. Caprice, taste and other whims also need to be avoided in the creative process. If a work doesn't look good, that's not necessarily a reason to reject it. Sometimes what is considered weird at first turns out to be visually pleasing. One way to avoid subjectivity is to set a plan from the beginning and follow it. This, in turn, eliminates the need to design each piece. The scheme itself will design the work. Some solutions require millions of possible variations, while others require only a few variables, but both are limited. There are also schemes involving infinity. Then, in each case, the artist needs to choose basic forms and rules that determine the solution to the problem. After that, the fewer decisions you have to make during the process of completing your piece, the better. This minimizes whims, capriciousness and subjectivity. This is also the reason for using this creative method. When an artist works with multiple modular approaches, he usually chooses a simple and already ready-made form. The form itself is not so important, it becomes the grammar of the entire work. In fact, it is better for the basic unit to be intentionally uninteresting, so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the overall composition. Using complex basic forms will only destroy the integrity of the work. Repetition of a simple form narrows the scope of the work and enhances the strength of the formal arrangement. This arrangement becomes the end, and the form becomes the method. Conceptual art has little to do with mathematics, philosophy, or any other spiritual discipline. The mathematics most artists use is just arithmetic or a simple number system. The philosophy of the work exists only implicitly in the work, and is not a depiction of any philosophical system. It doesn’t matter whether the viewer understands the artist’s concept after seeing the work. Once the work leaves the artist's hands, the artist has no control over how the viewer interprets his work. Different people will have different understandings of the same thing. There's been a lot written about minimal art lately, but I haven't found anyone admitting to making anything like this. There are other art forms called primitive structures, reductive art, confrontational art, cool art or mini art. No artist I know would match himself with these titles. So I decided that this was part of the code that art critics used when communicating with each other through art magazines. “Mini Art” is the funniest because it reminds me of miniskirts and long-legged girls. It should be talking about very small works. This is a very good idea. Perhaps "mini art" exhibitions could be shipped around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini artist is a very short person, like less than 5 feet tall. If this is the case, you should be able to find a lot of good works in elementary schools (primary structural art). If the artist realizes his ideas and puts them into visible form. Then every step in the process is important. The idea itself, even if not visualized, is as much a work as any finished work. All the steps of intervention - doodling, sketching, painting, failed works, models, learning, ideas, conversations - are interesting. Works that illustrate an artist's thought process are sometimes more interesting than the final product. Deciding on the size of a piece can be difficult. If an idea requires a three-dimensional representation, it seems likely that any size will do. The question is, what size is most suitable. If the work is large, the size alone may be impressive, but the idea may be completely lost. But if you make it too small, it might seem unimportant. The height of the viewer may have an impact on the work, and the size of the exhibition space is also a factor to consider. The artist may want to place the work higher or lower than the viewer's eye level. I think the size of the work should be large enough to give the viewer enough information to understand the work. And the way it is placed is also to aid this understanding. (Unless the idea of the work is to intentionally create barriers to viewing and entry. ) Space can be thought of as a cubic space occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume can occupy space. It is invisible air. Only the gaps between objects can be measured. Spacing and distance can be very important to a piece. If certain distances are important, they should be evident in the work. If the space is relatively unimportant, it can be fixed and cut at even distances to avoid unnecessary interest between gaps. Conventional space may also become a factor used to measure time, which may be a certain conventional rhythm or pause. When intervals are regular, any irregularities gain more importance. Architecture and the art of three-dimensional volumes are essentially opposites. The former considers the construction of an area with special functions. Architecture, whether it is art in itself or not, needs to be functional, otherwise it is a complete failure. Art is not functional. When three-dimensional art begins to have certain characteristics, such as forming functional areas, it weakens its artistic function. When the viewer feels dwarfed by the monumental size of the work, this oppression emphasizes the physical and emotional power of the form, but at the risk of losing the idea of the work. New materials are one of the greatest tribulations of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that indulges in flashy gimmickry. Most artists who are attracted to these materials lack rigorous thinking, which makes it difficult to use these materials well. Artists who can make good use of a new material and apply it to their works are truly good artists. But the danger is, I think, that the obsession with making the physicality of the material so important becomes the very idea of the work. (another form of expressionism) Any three-dimensional art is just a physical fact. Physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is meant to interact with the viewer's mind rather than his eyes or emotions. The physicality of the three-dimensional object thus becomes a contradiction against its non-emotional intentions. Color, surface, texture and shape only emphasize the physical character of the work. Any physicality that captures the attention and interest of the viewer threatens our understanding of the idea and serves only as an expressive tool. Conceptual artists will want to improve this emphasis on physicality as much as possible, or in a mystical way. This type of art should therefore be produced at the most expensive price to make a point. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be expressed in three dimensions. Ideas can also be presented by numbers, photographs, words, or any other way the artist chooses; the form is not important. These words are not intended to be absolute imperatives. But these stated thoughts are as close as possible to what I am thinking at the moment. These ideas are a product of my work as an artist and will change as my experiences change. I've tried to express these ideas as clearly as possible. If these claims I have made are not clear enough, it may mean that my thinking itself is not clear. Even as I write down these thoughts, They all seem inconsistent (I tried to revise a few, but it's possible some were missed). I don’t want to preach conceptual art to all artists. I find that it works for me sometimes, but not always. It’s a way to create art. Other ways may work for other artists. I also don’t think all conceptual art captures the audience’s attention. Conceptual art works are only good when the ideas are good. Some sentences about conceptual art  1. Conceptual artists are more mystics than rationalists. The conclusions they discovered were inaccessible to logic.  2. Intellectual judgment repeats intellectual judgment.  3. Irrational judgment brings new experiences.  4. Formal art is intellectual in nature.  5. Irrational ideas should be developed absolutely and logically.  6. If an artist changes his mind during the execution of a work, his final result is bound to be compromised and a repetition of past results.  7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea to completion. His willful behavior was probably just self-ambition.  8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote an entire context of tradition and imply a range of acceptances of that tradition. This limits artists who are unwilling to be bound and wish to break and transcend these shackles.  9. Concepts and ideas are different. The former implies a general direction, while the latter is only one component of it. Idea execution concept.  10. Ideas themselves may be works, and in a series of developments they may eventually find some form. Not all ideas need to be physically present.  11. Ideas do not necessarily develop in a logical way. They may take the artist in unknown directions. But an idea must be completed in the mind before moving on to the next idea.  12. Every work that becomes physical has many other possibilities that do not require physical existence.  13. A work can be understood as a conductor that carries the ideas from the artist’s mind to the mind of the viewer. But the idea may never reach the viewer, and it may never leave the artist's mind.  14. Words from one artist to another may contain a chain of ideas if they all stem from the same idea.  15. Since no form is inherently superior to another, artists can create in any form. From written expression (oral narration or written form) to physical existence, they are all equal.  16. If words are used and their starting point is about art. Then they are art and not literature. Just like numbers are not mathematics.  17. All ideas related to art or within the conventions of art are art.  18. People often misunderstand the art of the past by using the conventions of the present to understand it.  19. The conventions of art are broken by works of art. 20. Successful art changes our understanding of conventional things by changing our perceptions. 21. Perception of ideas generates new ideas. 22. The artist cannot imagine his work. It can only be truly perceived when it is in the perfect form. 23. The artist may misunderstand a work (different from the creator's own understanding of the work), but he can still develop a series of his own ideas based on this erroneous construction. 24. Interpretation of works is highly subjective. 25. The artist does not necessarily understand his own art. He may have a better or worse perception of his own work than anyone else. 26. Artists may perceive that other artists' work is better than their own. 27. The concept of the work may be related to the theme of the work, or it may be related to the process of its creation. 28. Once the idea for the work is established in the artist's mind and the final form has been decided upon, the rest of the process can be done with eyes closed. Of course, there will be many side effects in the process that the artist cannot imagine. These can be used as ideas for new pieces. 29. The process is mechanical and should not be changed. It should do its job on its own. 30. There are many elements in a work. The most important element is also the most obvious. 31. If an artist retains the same form in a group of works, but replaces the materials. Then we can assume that the artist's concept involves materials. 32. A mediocre idea cannot be saved by beautiful execution. 33. It’s hard to mess up a good idea. 34. When an artist becomes too skilled, most of the art he creates is flashy. 35. These words comment on art, but are not art themselves.  ArtistSol LeWitt Translation: Chen The accompanying picture is the work of artist Sol LeWitt himself. Click "Read the original text" in the lower left corner to browse our WeChat store😊 －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－  Open Art brings you information about international artist residency programs, film festival submissions, in-depth art interviews and reviews, as well as worth-watching art books and films. Welcome to pay attention! Website: www.open-art.co WeChat ID: OpenArt_Space Email: hello@open-art.co Follow this public account and reply to "Art Residency", "Art Criticism", or "Art Interview" to view related exciting historical content |
|
|
|
|
|
