The Alpha vs. The Omega

If Conceptualism is to be taken seriously as it wishes to be taken within the artistic community is it not reasonable that we consider the validity of some of the claims that Conceptualism has to make in order to be a dominant feature in contemporary art practice? The first of these claims one would think is the belief in the system of imbuing ideas within artworks and for those ideas to be successfully conveyed to an audience.[1] What does an artist do when they set out to make a work? What happens between the idea and the work itself? And what transpires from the work to the audience?[2] What is lost in the process between the idea and the manifestation of the vehicle of that idea? But before we tackle these ideas shouldn’t we interrogate the very act of thinking as well? What are the limitations of rational thought and expressible ideas? How do we accurately see the world?[3] Isn’t art a platform where subjectivity and multiplicity are favored and does this make art the most accurate or effective way of communicating and evaluating high-end philosophical ideas? How can the constellation of movements and ideas within art like Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism, Formalism, Arte povera and the Neo-Baroque all coexist peacefully whilst the importance of conceptual clarity and lineage is stressed?[4] Is it desirable to hold to one particular notion or to attempt to persuade people to your way of thinking in an artwork? Should art predominately be honed into a conceptual point in order to affect an instance of communication or is this process itself absurd and unnecessary? Intellectual rigor demands us to follow our ideas to the end, not to censor or ignore the context in which ideas stem from but to include them as the framework in which an idea exists, by which an idea is able to exist. But what of the framework that surrounds the framework? This intellectual rigor quickly arrives at a conceptual turbulence where the flood of ideas to be considered reaches past the outer limits of human understanding and capability. How do we relate to this conceptual matrix (or milieu {or mire})?

But enough of this! I don’t know about you but I’m sick of this stale fountain of speculations and ceaseless questions. It’s time to take a slightly more heuristic approach.

---

[1] But before we can even contemplate this assertion we have to investigate the relationship between thoughts and actions.

[2] Is it possible to even render thoughts effectively?

[3] Are there not the worlds we perceive, the worlds we can articulate and then the world proper?

[4] If multiple conceptual assertions are simultaneously stressed then a clear conceptual transmission cannot take place. To assert a coherent idea or principle it is necessary to counter-assert everything that contradicts the idea being conveyed in order to make sense. What ideas do you contradict or undermine when you put forward an idea in an artwork?