Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
When I saw Kossuth for the first time, more than ten years ago, I was basically that “simple spectator”-no more complicated than a monkey wrench, anyway. My understanding of art was about the same as that of most ordinary viewers: that is, the most modern that I was able to perceive were the Peredvizhniki and Impressionists. Of all the periods of Picasso, I went no further than pink, ideas about abstractionism were at the level that someone made rectangles, and someone made blots, and I probably did not know the word “conceptualism” at all.
Kossuth did not cause me any difficulties, and after ten years of studying art, I still can not say what this difficulty should consist of. It appeals to a division that is familiar to absolutely anyone – that you are not your photo or your passport name. It's just that the same applies to other subjects. I don't see anything here that a person can't bring out on their own, if of course they want to.
The argument that understanding Kossuth requires an in-depth knowledge of theory is not convincing, primarily because Kossuth was only 20 years old at the time of the creation of The Three Chairs, so he was hardly a deep connoisseur of Wittgenstein himself. Kossuth, like any normal artist, did something that he didn't see around him – identified the lack of a simple-as-a-chair work on basic semiotics, the problems of which were generally formulated more than half a century earlier, but for some reason no one got to it.
In addition, in 1965, at the time of its creation, the average viewer could know about as much about conceptualism as a leading art critic – since conceptualism as such did not yet exist. Conceptualism as a principle was formulated in 1969, that is, four years after Kossuth's work.
In other words, if neither the audience, nor art critics, nor Kossuth himself knew anything about conceptualism at that time, then why should this stop the viewer in 2019?
No. It's not specifically a matter of conceptualism, no one can “understand” a work without knowing anything about the method by which it is executed. For example, few people can read the entire symbolism of Dutch still lifes, people just read a specific image of flowers, shells, etc. The question is therefore not the most correct, for understanding any “art” requires training, just for conceptualism it requires more. In such cases, it is better to refer to the explanations of the authors themselves, since starting with futurism, almost all subsequent art trends had their own manifestos and explanatory texts of the author. For example, Joseph Kossuth wrote “Art after Philosophy”, a 15-page text that explains the principles of conceptualism relatively clearly.
Kossuth's basic principle:”Being an artist today means asking questions about the nature of art.” Simply put, we can say that art after M. Duchamp, according to Kossuth, should talk about art, not a person, for example, as it was before, art should learn the nature and essence of art, and not entertain the viewer.
Quote: “In our time, on the contrary, the experimental environment [of man] is extremely enriched. You can fly around the globe in just a few hours and days (not months, as before). We have movies, color television, as well as man-made wonders — Las Vegas light shows or New York skyscrapers. The whole world is accessible for viewing, and on the other hand, the whole world can see a person on the surface of the moon without leaving their apartments. Of course, no one expects that the objects of painting and sculpture will be able to visually and experimentally compete with all this.”
So here the viewer should not specifically understand a particular work, but ask about the principle of art, “a chair and three chairs” is not a finished preserved image, but an illustration of the ideas of conceptualism, these illustrations are changeable and not so important (according to Kossuth) the idea is important, “a chair and three chairs” is the starting point in thinking about art.
Conceptual art is that people like you honestly tell the world that this is all, sorry, dog shit. For example, the case of glasses and watches at the exhibition of contemporary art.
A prime example. Put a toilet bowl on Red Square and pointedly put it in it. what's not art?
All modern art boils down to the fact that we can't think of anything else worthwhile, so, well, you understand, we are content with what we have.
As a musician, I can give you an example. The 20th century was full of composers who experimented with writing music. As a result, there was a don't understand what and don't understand how.
As a result, where is it all? A lot of friends friends who listen to avant-garde music? Did everyone listen to Cage 4:33? although what is there to listen to.
My point is that art is not just about creating some bullshit, saying it's art, and convincing others of it. Art should bring emotions, impressions, satisfaction, and so on to the life of the person watching it. and if I come to the exhibition and see a chair, a chair, and a chair, then this is bullshit. Not because I'm so stupid, but because it's bullshit. In the Simpsons, by the way, there is a great series on this topic.(19 episodes (222 episodes) of The Simpsons season 10)
First of all, I want to say that I am completely unfamiliar with conceptual art and represent the very type of “simple” person.
And now in order.
At first glance, really nothing meaningful. However, in the hope that there is still some essence here, I began to look at the objects.
The photo, the chair itself, and its definition in the explanatory dictionary of the English language…
Not much, right?
But I managed to miss the thread of meaning here(at least, I hope), and the very name of the installation gave me a hint:”One and three chairs”.
The author obviously hints that the chair appears to us in three guises. Exactly:
Image of a chair (photo).
A material object(a specific chair).
The concept or idea of a chair(what we know and know about it – in this case, the definition in the dictionary).
One chair is probably our collective definition, three chairs are all that I described above.�
I would like to note that all of the above does not claim to be the ultimate truth and is purely subjective in nature.
To understand the meaning of conceptual art, it is necessary to study the history of art, conceptual art itself, and, accordingly, modern philosophy (which, in turn, is not particularly clear without studying ancient, classical German, etc. philosophies). Of course, as you study these listed areas of knowledge, you will have to touch a lot more related ones, such as psychology, aesthetics, and sociology. It doesn't hurt to read more classic fiction. In the end, as part of the study of art history, walk around museums, galleries, and Internet resources.
When many years have passed and your level of knowledge and development is almost sufficient to curate a contemporary art exhibition, then you will be able to understand the meaning of J. R. R. Tolkien's installation quite well. Kossuth “One and three chairs”.
With a high degree of confidence, we can assume that the less a person has studied all of the above, the less they understand conceptual art.