| Syllabus / Conceptual-Art-S11

Conceptual Art H79.2586.1

Georgia Krantz
glk2@nyu.edu
FRI 3:30-6:00
Office hours: anytime by appointment

“Concept art is first of all an art of which the material is concepts, as the material of eg music is sound. Since concepts are closely bound up with language, concept art is a kind of art of which the material is language.”
- Henry Flint, from “Concept Art”(1961)

“Conceptual art was the point at which the conception of the artwork as an object of visual or, more broadly, spatial experience and pleasure was most directly and radically challenged...artists contested the aesthetic definition of the artwork by highlighting the role of ideas in the production of meaning from visual forms...Any attempt at a definition of conceptual art immediately runs up against the problem that definition is one of the main things at stake in conceptual art itself. Conceptual art, one might say, is art about the cultural act of definition...”
- Peter Osborne, Conceptual Art (Phaidon, 2002)

“Conceptual art is based on the notion that the essence of art is an idea, or concept, and may exist distinct from and in the absence of an object as its representation. It has also been called Idea art, Post-object art, and Dematerialized art because it often assumes the form of a proposition (ie., a document of the artist’s thinking) or a photographic document of an event. Conceptual art practices emerged at a time when the authority of the art institution and the preciousness of the unique aesthetic object were begin widely challenged by artists and critics. Conceptual artists interrogated the possibilities of art- as-idea or art-as-knowledge, and to those ends explored linguistic, mathematical, and process-oriented dimensions of thought and aesthetics, as well as invisible systems, structures, and processes. Artists such as Joseph Kosuth and members of he Art & Language group wrote theoretical essays that questioned the ways in which art has conventionally acquired meaning. In some cases such texts served as the art works themselves. Other figures associated with Conceptual art include Mel Bochner, Hanne Darboven, Agnes Denes, Jan Dibbets, Hans Haacke, On Kawara, Les Levine, Sol Lewitt, and Lawrence Weiner.”
- Guggenheim Collection, Glossary, Conceptual Art

In his foundational essay on Conceptual Art, “Art After Philosophy,” (1969) Conceptual artist Joseph Kosuth (born 1945, Toledo, Ohio) puts forth an interpretive framework for his art (“and other artists as well”) in which the importance of form – or formalist elements - is eclipsed by the importance of function. For Kosuth, in order to understand the function of art, one must question its nature. Kosuth acknowledges Marcel Duchamp as the originator of such ideas:

“The function of art, as a question, was first raised by Marcel Duchamp. In fact it is Marcel Duchamp whom we can credit with giving art its own identity...With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed it focus from the form of the language to what was being said. Which means that it changed the nature of art from a question of morphology to a question of function. This change – one from ‘appearance’ to ‘conception’ – was the beginning of ‘modern’ art and the beginning of ‘conceptual’ art.”

Over the years, Kosuth has reconsidered his initial definition of Conceptual art, stating in 1996:

“Conceptual art, simply put, had as its basic tenet an understanding that artists work with meaning, not with shapes, colors or materials.”

The focus on concept as opposed to form is also the thrust of the important analysis of Conceptual art by the curator, activist and writer, Lucy Lippard. In her book, The Dematerialization of the Art Object From 1966 to 1972 (1972), Lippard examines diverse artistic practices of the period, ultimately rooting her observations about the work as that,

“...in which the idea is paramount and the material form is secondary, lightweight, ephemeral, cheap unpretentious, and/or dematerialized.”

This echoes her friend, Conceptual artist Sol Lewitt (born 1928 in Hartford, CT; died New York in 2007), who wrote in his foundational essay on Conceptual art, “Sentences on Conceptual Art” (1969):

“Ideas can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.”

Artistic resistance during this period to elements of form, appearance and material manifestations of the art object has its roots in a complex matrix of cultural, social and political circumstances. Conceptual art was, after all, born in an era famous for its exceptional unrest. In his essay, “The Promise of Conceptual Art,” (2000) Blake Stimson describes a situation where Conceptual artists, like everyone else, were swept up in the promise of challenge to authority:

“Conceptual artists of varieties shared with others of their generation an unequaled sense of opportunity and obligation to question the authority of the institutions that superintended their social roles, and the ambition to develop alternative means of negotiating their interests within the larger social order. Just as the Black Panthers felt the need and the capacity to challenge the racism of the police and, thereby, of society as a whole by posing as a substitute armed force, just as antiwar activists were able to question the legitimacy of the war and circumvent the draft by various means, just as hippies dropped out of the existing civil society and instituted various countercultural mores, and just as women’s liberation and gay power advocates called into question the institution of the patriarchal family and its extension in the larger social order and developed alternative structures of support and agency, so conceptualism challenged the authority of the institutional apparatus framing its place in society and sought out other means for art to function in the world.”

In 1975, Joseph Kosuth claimed:

“It is impossible to understand [what conceptualism achieved] without understanding the sixties and appreciating Conceptual Art for what it was: the art of the Vietnam war era.”

Despite an intensely volatile socio-political environment, most artists, critics and scholars agree that Conceptual art of the 60s and 70s failed to effect any significant change in the art world, much less the larger, entrenched social, political and economic structures of society. Nevertheless, with its critique of autonomous, aesthetic objects and the institutional structures which legitimize them – and thus the search for new media and strategies of meaning - Conceptual art has had profound and enduring influence on art since the 1970s. It is useful to think about Conceptual art as a discourse - not as a movement or a style or a cohesive set of principles - but as an exchange of ideas regarding new languages of art which will reflect a radically changing cultural and social landscape.

Language is a key element of Conceptual art and the artistic practices that grew out of it – language in its graphic form (words) as well as the theoretical paradigms through which meaning in words and language are constructed and understood. Semiotics and structuralism, post-structuralism and postmodernism all play significant roles in the thinking of not only artists, but also scholars reflecting upon art from the 1960s to today.

A phenomenon of particular significance in the scholarship on Conceptual art is the role of Clement Greenberg and “Greenbergian Modernism” in shaping the environment from which Conceptual art emerged. For those unfamiliar with modernist theory, perhaps a brief explanation here will be of value. Clement Greenberg was an American art critic, commonly observed as quite conservative, who wielded great influence as an arbiter of artistic “quality,” “taste” and value, especially in the 1950s and 60s. Greenberg essentially equated “high modern” art with artists who worked to refine a medium- specific approach to their work; he championed, above all, Abstract Expressionist painters, especially Jackson Pollock. For Greenberg, the highest form of art was that which concerned itself so strictly with its medium and essential materials – purely formalist artistic elements (form) – that the work was about the medium and nothing else. Painting should be about painting - not subject matter, not space, not forms, just painting. Hence the work is,

“rendered pure, and in its purity finds the guarantee of its standard of quality as well as of its independence.”
- Greenberg, “Modernist Painting,” 1961

Greenberg represented the “status quo” of art in the 1950s and 60s; the photographer and Conceptual art scholar, Jeff Wall, calls Greenbergian formalism, “the institutional orthodoxy of corporatized art business.” As we will see, form, quality, taste, purity as equated with high art and the art business were just some of the contemporary cultural values stifling Conceptual artists who were striving for new means of expression, identity and social and cultural relevance. In his essay, “1975,” Kosuth described the Greenberg era as follows:

“In the late sixties and early seventies in New York there was somewhat of a ‘junta’ atmosphere in the art world. The Greenberg gang [Greenberg had a number of staunch followers, including critic and art historian, Michael Fried] was attempting with great success to initiate an Official History gestalt, and there wasn’t much generosity toward us ‘novelty’ artists that didn’t happen to fit into the prescribed historical continuum.”

Examining Conceptual art is messy, not only because “it’s conceptual” is popularly heard in relation to any art that is made of unconventional materials or difficult to understand. Artists responsible for the emergence of Conceptual art maintained diverse perspectives on the parameters of the new art. For example, Joseph Kosuth and Sol Lewitt were at odds when it came to the question of the role of the viewer in the constitution of the art work. A number of Conceptual artists with diverse ideas and practices laid claim to not only the genesis of Conceptual art, but also what they considered to be the “true” Conceptual art. Lucy Lippard’s terminology, “the dematerialization of the art object,” has been debated by artists and scholars alike, who note, for example, that even the use of words/language in Conceptual art practice constituted material form. As conceptual art scholar, Peter Osborne, writes,

“...the rejection of visuality as the defining quality of the significance of a work does not necessarily involve a retreat from ‘matter,’ so much as an expansion of the means through which it may be understood to become artistically significant.”

->- Osborne, Conceptual Art (Themes and Movements), Phaidon, 2002

Scholars Ann Goldstein and Anne Rorimer write,

“The association of Conceptual art with the primacy of the idea, in some cases to the point of the elimination of a physical art object, does represent a key strategy...While these new works were often not dematerialized in a literal sense, they were nevertheless no longer contained within the object. Instead, it became a point of reference and question.”
- Reconsidering the Object of Art: 1965-1975, MIT Press, 1995; catalogue for the exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA) in Los Angeles

Indeed, Lawrence Weiner, considered one of the first Conceptual artists and who used (and still uses) words and language, claimed in the 1970s and continues to claim today that his primary focus is on materials. It is revealing that neither Weiner nor most of the other Conceptual artists of the 60s/70s ever considered themselves Conceptual artists. Scholarly assessments of Conceptual art have been rigorously – as well as with complete indifference - rebuked by artists; Joseph Kosuth roundly criticized the prominent and widely-published art historian, Benjamin Buchloh, for “lying” and “twisting history” in his essay for the first retrospective of Conceptual Art in Paris in 1989. Gallery owner and Conceptual art exhibitor, Seth Siegelaub, called it “art history as art history as art history” (playing on Kosuth’s notion of art as tautology – “art as idea as idea,” which played off of painter Ad Reinhardt’s own notion of “art as art as art). Conceptual art scholar, Tony Godfrey, writes,

''“We should remain wary. There is a tendency in creating ‘meta-histories’ to simplify or purify Conceptual art, beginning with theoretical assumptions rather

than the variety of works made under its banner. Given the attack that Conceptualists launched on historicism – the idea of progress in art – this is highly ironic.”''\\ - Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art, 1998

Further challenging the study of Conceptual art - the ideas, strategies and motivations particular to the artists of the late 60s and early 70s have (inevitably and understandably) been transformed in the process of adoption and adaptation to new eras of creativity – also by artists who initiated Conceptual art and are still practicing today (Joseph Kosuth, Lawrence Weiner, Bruce Nauman, Robert Barry, Victor Burgin and others). Over the course of time, there have been vigorous backlashes against Conceptual, or “neo- Conceptual” art, with claims, for example, that current artists using Conceptual art ideas are vacuous hacks, or only in the business of selling luxury goods - the commodification of art being anathema to the artists of the 60s and 70s. In 2002, Ivan Massow, chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, raged that most conceptual art is,

“pretentious, self-indulgent craftless tat”[and that the British art world was in] “danger of disappearing up its own arse...”//

- (Guardian)///

The term “conceptual art” as it is used today carries with it a 40-year history of reexamination and recontextualization by artists, scholars and critics – as well as collectors and gallery owners interested (or very uninterested) in the role(s) of conceptual art within culture and society. Thus the term as it is used today is understood within an even more pluralistic and complex matrix of signification than it was in the 60s and 70s. To utilize a model of assessment by the contemporary art historian, Martha Buskirk, the term “conceptual art” activates a whole history of references to earlier forms of Conceptual art. Such traces may not be literally inscribed in a work, but rather appear in the intersection of the work and its presentation in critical or interpretive contexts where it will be read in relation to, and become part of, the history of conceptual art (The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art, MIT Press, 2003).

That said, there are some identifiable features of conceptualism in contemporary art (defined as art from the 1970s to today) – strongly reflecting the concerns of early Conceptual artists – that may be useful in beginning to unpack the history of conceptual art:

artistic production that is self-reflexive/self-critical
artistic production that speaks to institutional practices, policies and/or packages (ie., spaces/galleries)
less of a concern with the object than with language (in its physical form as well as the interpretive structures that govern it – structuralism/post-structuralism, deconstruction, post-modernism)
less of a concern with the object than with the meaning(s) derived from the object
less of a concern with meanings prescribed by the artist than those experienced by the viewer (effacement of authorial voice)
less of a concern with the timeless, autonomous, sacred object than with objects that signify, unfold and even deteriorate over time and space
an interest in materials/mediums that come from, reflect and/or are in direct use by a culture or society (by direct use, I refer as examples to John Baldessari, Dan Graham and Adrian Piper who succeeded in inserting their own images into daily newspapers – for them, their medium is the newspaper as it exists in circulation).

The past twenty years has witnessed a reinvigoration of interest in and critical examination of C/conceptual art, providing fresh and nuanced perspectives on relationships between C/conceptual art and philosophy, the commodification of culture, identity politics, institutional critique and other areas of inquiry. This course will examine the roots (Abstract Expressionism, Fluxus, Minimalism), emergence and legacies of Conceptual art through an investigation of artistic practice and primary and secondary sources.

The course will be conducted as a reading/lecture/discussion course. Please note that the reading and discussion components of the course are vital to its success; all students are expected to fully prepare all readings and participate in class discussions. Participation in discussion is 20% of the final grade and taken very seriously. If you have any concerns about your ability to fully engage with the reading and discussion, please come talk to me right away.

We will be making a number of off-site visits. Critical theory will be incorporated into all aspects of the course. The course has been conceptualized and designed to enhance perception of art through a variety of channels - from sustained, close looking at art/objects, to exploratory conversations, to more rigorous thinking and discussions informed by lectures, readings, projects and papers.

Attendance and credit
Timely attendance at all classes is expected. Necessary absences require advanced notification. 2 unexcused absences – and 3 excused absences - will result in failure of the course. Chronic late arrivals will weigh on your final grade.

ITP switched from letter grades to pass/fail in 2008; students are encouraged to read about this decision at http://itp.nyu.edu/help/Help/PassFail. Students are expected to demonstrate and are graded on continued effort and progress in all aspects of the course. In the previous, grade-based system, students were expected to maintain a B average in order to stay in the program. The same expectation exists within the new system. Earning a C grade in the previous system translates to failure in the new one. The same holds for this course. Students will be given notice when the quality of their work is marginal or failing (eg., meetings with me, midterm grades)
Please note that all assignments must be submitted to pass this course. Assignments are to be submitted on time.

Midterm project, 25%
Final project, 25%
Assignments, 30%
Participation; thorough preparation and discussion of weekly readings, verbally engaging in class discussions

Format for all written assignments: 12-point font, double-spaced, complete sentences.

Disability statement/policy
The ITP community extends itself to create a fully inclusive learning environment for all students. For students who have a physical, psychological, medical or learning disability that may impact their course work, please contact the Henry and Lucy Moses Center for Students with Disabilities at 719 Broadway, (212) 998-4980. They will work with students – or students and their professors if the student wishes such a collaboration - to determine what accommodations are necessary and appropriate. All information is confidential. If contacting the Center is a necessary option for a student, they should do so at the very beginning of the semester. I will not be able to be of any assistance to a student who informs me of a disability near the end of the semester.

Laptops
Laptops may be used during class only for taking notes. Laptops should be shut during student presentations. Please no e-mailing, surfing or working on outside projects during class.

Text books (at the annex):

Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art, Phaidon, 1998. - Get through this book as soon as you can. It is an excellent and accessible overview, and will provide good ground for discussions. Lots of images.
Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson eds., Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology, MIT Press, 1999

Many of the excerpts assigned for course come from this book. Class readings are available in:

Alberro and Stimson, above (abbreviated as CACA)
pdfs, on the course wiki

Outline (subject to change)
Week 1, 1/28: Introduction: course expectations, detailed review of syllabus. Baldessari at the Met.
I am giving a public talk on the AbEx show at MoMA on Thursday, February 3 at 7:30pm and Sunday, February 6 at 11:30am. If you would like to attend and cannot gain free entry, let me know and I will get you a ticket. AbEx, the “movement” which directly preceded Conceptual art in America, represents the height of modernism as championed by Clement Greenberg and the kind of work that Conceptual artists rallied against.

Week 2, 2/4: Idea as medium, language as medium
Reading due this week

Lucy Lippard and John Chandler, “The Dematerialization of Art,” CACA, pp. 46-50
Sol Lewitt, “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art,” CACA, pp. 12-16
Sol Lewitt, “Sentences on Conceptual Art,” CACA, pp. 106-108
Joseph Kosuth, “Art after Philosophy,” CACA, pp. 158-75
Editors of Art & Language, “Introduction,” CACA, pp. 98-104
Lee Lozano, “Dialogue Piece,” CACA, pp. 112-19
Gregory Battcock, “Painting is Obsolete,” CACA, pp. 88-89
Ludwig Wittgenstein, “‘Lecture on Ethics’ From Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,” Lawrence Cahoone ed., From Modernism to Postmodernism: an Anthology, Blackwell, 2003, pp. 139-143 (Attach:wittgenstein-ethics_logico-philosophicus.pdf Δ)
Roland Barthes, “Wine and Milk,” Mythologies, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972 http://bit.ly/f8y3lp
Ferdinand Saussure, “From Course in General Linguistics,” Lawrence Cahoone ed., From Modernism to Postmodernism: an Anthology, Blackwell, 2003, pp. 122-126 (Attach:saussure-general_linguistics.pdf Δ)