Talk:Conceptual art

message: I have added a quote by Joseph Kosuth which I feel is essential in establishing Duchamp's influence on later conceptual artists.  Also, I concur with Kramer J that the omission of Kosuth in the timeline is appalling.  I will attempt to add some artists and works in the timeline in later posts this Fall.
Mcameronboyd 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to get more input into this article. Tyrenius 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Conceptual Art

message: At the beginning of  Talk:Conceptual Art there is a box with a question mark. It reads: “It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.” Such a remark is an indication of the wooden iron contradiction in the words “Conceptual Art.” If User:Kramer J hadn’t deleted Schopenhauer’s remark, a reader would know why there is such a natural human desire and need to see a photograph or image of Conceptual Art. Art must be based on perceptions, not concepts. Schopenhauer asserted that concepts are useful in life, as well as necessary and productive in science. However, according to him, they are “eternally barren and unproductive in art.” User:Kramer J judged that incisive remark to be pointless and irrelevant. User:Kramer J also claimed that comments for or against Conceptual Art are infinite. “Why not include comments by Wittgenstein, Descartes, or Arthur Danto?”, he asks. But if these thinkers have important and clarifying insights and thoughts on the subject of Conceptual Art, why not include them in the article? Would a few dozen of these words harm the article? I have seen serious Wikipedia articles that contain long lists of references to popular culture, television, and movies. If some screenwriter mentions Einstein in his silly script, then the Wikipedia article finds room to mention it without concern for its being “pointless and irrelevant.” But, if a real thinker has a dozen words to say about the relationship between concepts and art, there is always a User:Kramer J who will quickly delete it. So the request to see Conceptual Art will remain at the head of the Talk page. But it would  be understandable to a reader who could have benefited from Schopenhauer’s remark about the futility of basing art on mere abstract concepts and the words that are used to designate them.Lestrade 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to aim for a comprehensive survey of the subject, and this would seem to be a valid observation from a significant thinker, so perhaps it should be reinstated. Thoughts anyone? Tyrenius 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I could only see three possible responses to the provocation of the schopenhauer quote: 1) leave it alone and uncontextualised to stand as gratuitous POV; 2) take it as an invitation to a never-ending game of "add a quote for/add a quote against"; or 3) delete it. There was of course a fourth option: work it into a general philosophical discussion of the relationship between the sensual and ideational in art, but that would eventually take us away from conceptualism and into the wider morass of philosophical aesthetics - a very sticky business. Kramer J 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reminder that wiki uses secondary sources as in WP:VERIFY so quotes or observations from different writers are quite acceptable, not just from artists. Also a request to bear in mind that we are writing for an average reader, not art theoretical specialists, so language should be attuned accordingly. Tyrenius 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a quote by Sol LeWitt that the average reader should immediately comprehend: "The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is a component. Ideas implement the concept."Lestrade 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That cannot be used unless you provide a verifiable reference for it. Anyone contributing to the article or the discussion should please note this essential point. Tyrenius 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Pointlessness and Irrelevance

message: The term "Conceptual Art" is an oxymoron or wooden iron. A concept is a general thought that consists of that which is common to several perceptions. For example, I see a poodle, a hound, and a pit bull. If I think of the general individual that is common to all three, I have the concept dog. For purposes of communication, concepts are designated by names. Therefore, Conceptual Art would either show an individual perception or a name. If it shows an individual perception, it is visual art, not Conceptual Art. If it shows a name, then it is a mere sign, similar to a billboard containing words. The adjective "conceptual" is the opposite of the noun "art." That results in its being an oxymoron, or contradiction between an adjective and a noun.Lestrade 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please study WP:TPG. This page is not the place for original research. Please contribute referenced material from secondary sources. Thank you. Tyrenius 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be true for the main article. This is, however, the discussion page. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "discussion" that takes place here is supposed to be relevant to the editing of the article. I could say that all art is "conceptual," a view I hold. But I don't know of the source supporting that view. Similarly, the above thoughts from 2006 are not accompanied by sources expounding those views. Hence it is hard to say how these views are consonant with the purpose of formulating verbiage that has as its origin reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oxymoron]]

message: Re: the concept and the oxymoron. Jonathan Janes (?spelling) had an interesting discussion in his book "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind" which revolutionised the way i looked at poetry: the paraphrand and the metaphrand. These two may be useful in your thoughts on general versus specific terms. However, I agree with tyrenius that this ain't the place. In the end words are not pictures, though they are the only tools we have for communicating thoughts about art to each other, they are at best barely adequate. Lgh 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, a Wikipedia article on Conceptual Art is not the place to clearly and distinctly present information about concepts, art, perceptions, and words. These four terms are all different from each other and their relationships are not commonly understood. It almost seems as though the article is expected to be read by mindless people who don't care to seriously understand anything involved in the subject of Conceptual Art. Maybe their interests are on other things, such as careers, appearing to be modern or current, etc. When you say that Jonathan Janes (spelling uncertain) wrote an article that revolutionised the way that you look at poetry, you are not adequately "communicating thoughts about art to" me.Lestrade 12:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some secondary sources and all will be well, as in WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sit nomine digna 

message: I have not seen a response to my query on the addition of Natasha Vita-More who I believe to be an exemplar conceptual artist. She is the first artist to conceptualize a future human in her well-received and highly publicized Primo Posthuman which has appeared in BBC, PBS, TLC, several times in Wired magazine, New York Times, London Guardian, amongst others. (The Atlantic Monthly magazine called her a cross between Duchamp and Madonna.)  Regardless of whether or not authors are interested in the future, Vita-More is a pioneer and known conceptual thinker amongst scientists, technologists and artists who are interested in the future. I'd like to see her added to the list of artists in this article. Avantguarde 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no comments.  Please voice your views about adding Natasha Vita-More to the list of Conceptual Art artists.  Since Conceputal Art is still a noteworthy genre (and perhaps making a comeback), it is opportune to add Vita-More to the list.  Avantguarde 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes to the addition of Natasha Vita-More. Yes, conceptual art is relevant, probably/possibly on the comeback, definitely so with the move into science and art hybridity, which I would classify under "conceptual art" since the formal elements are secondary to the concept/idea.Freshacconci 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree but she seems more to fit in an article about transhumanist art (should there be one) than in this. Mel Bochner hasn't yet been mentioned except for in the list, and better coverage of the movement needs to happen before making conjectures about it's legacy. About this kind of list- they are helpful in developing articles but often get removed once the article is in paragraph form.  DVD+ R/W 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with  DVD+ R/W and would eventually like to see the list either removed or broken up into sections that more accurately reflect where each artist stands in relation the movement. As I write this, the list appears to be a jumble that includes many unrelated figures from both art history and contemporary art. Yves Klein, Yoko Ono, Maurizio Cattelan and Vanessa Beecroft, great as they may be as artists, have little in common, and to claim them as "notable conceptual artists" is a stretch at best, and probably very confusing for someone researching the movement for the first time--any logic that may have previously guided the selection of artists for this list appears to have been lost. A sub-listing of notable contemporary artists who owe a debt to conceptualism might help to clarify things, and I would have no problem with Natasha Vita-More's inclusion in such a list. Ultimately though, lists of this sort are unsatisfying and fluid. Robert Smithson and Ian Burn were prime-movers in the debates going on during the initial moment of conceptual art (as both artists and writers), yet they do not appear on the list, while the peripherally related figures of Wolf Vostell and Joseph Beuys do. This sort of anomaly will continue to crop up while any such list exists. Kramer J 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about sub-dividing the list under headings to make it clear where each person fits in? And then moving it to its own page with a link from this article. Tyrenius 03:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A good idea. We'd need to come up with a logical structure for the sub-divisions and clear headings. Perhaps a simple chronological ordering will do; something like, 1) pre-Conceptual influences (Duchamp, Fluxus--others?), 2) the main movement (60s-early 70s), and 3) the Conceptual legacy (relevant contemporary artists). It's not a perfect way to carve things up, especially given that some of the artists from the first wave are still working today, and there will continue to be argument over who should be included in which section. Any other suggestions or ideas for further headings and/or better wording of the three I've mentioned? Kramer J 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Freshacconci for adding Natasha Vita-More because she represents the 21st century Conceptual Artist.  Unless you want to see this genre dead, I highly suggest that you include Vita-More because she is one person whose voice will be heard in the arts when Transhumanism gains more ground worldwide.  My suggestion is to have decades of Conceptual Artists from 1960 forward. My point being that if we are true to the genre, then we must be true to those who practice the art. Innovative conceptual thinking outperforms the status quo is deemed Conceptual Art. Remember, it is the "idea" - the brain work that is part and parcel to Conceptual Art, not the art itself.  Who is a conceptual groundbreaker if not Vita-More?  Her films and videos about immortality and gender-bending were produced in the 1970s, long before it became mainstream. Avantguarde 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on her doesn't even mention conceptual art. "she is one person whose voice will be heard in the arts when Transhumanism gains more ground worldwide": we don't include predictions. Tyrenius 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthy Artists 

message: Should artists be added to the list of Conceptual artists if they don't already have an article on Wikipedia? Isn't it the article on Wikipedia that establishes notability for an artist, as far as Wikipedia is concerned? I removed "red lettered" artists from the list but another editor put them back. Any opinions on this? Bus stop 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was of a similar mind. I found (or was pointed to--can't remember off-hand) this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery. I guess the basic thinking is that a red link represents articles that need to be created. However, I think I'm with Bus stop to a degree. Too often articles (especially lists) will have an abundance of red links that are never turned into actual articles. I try to be inclusionist and also follow the whole WP:BITE mindset, so I often refer to the above WikiProject on the talk page of an editor who has included a red link in an article. (Was that a sentence?). I think that's a good idea up to a point. Simply googling a name (and they're usually names) helps determine notability and referring to the Red Link Recovery WikiProject gives a new editor a place to start. But red links that have lingered for a long time should be removed, I feel. My 2 cents. Freshacconci 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to err on the side of removal of red links in lists. There's too many non notable names inserted.  It can be instructive to look at the contributing editor's other additions (if any). However, red links can serve a purpose to stimulate a needed article. That is the justification for them. Tyrenius 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is true to an extent; however the reason that I am so insistent about the inclusion of these three artists is that one (Brouwn) is generally considered to be a noteworthy first-generation conceptualist, if not to the degree of someone like Kosuth and Buren, and the other two are well-known younger conceptualists, again not as prominent as some other figures (e.g. Andrea Fraser, Christopher WIlliams) but still hardly unrecognized.  Nevertheless I do understand that it is problematic to take their importance as a given within WIkipedia, and so I will try to create at least some basic articles before including them in the list.  Arsene 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of noteworthy artists   

message: I suggest leaving in the reference to Metro Pictures Gallery (1990) as it was (and still is) the rare New York gallery to focus on conceptual art in the late 80s and 90s.I.A.Contino (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: The image :Image:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Le Saut Dans le Vide.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conceptual art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/history/issue_conceptual.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427145431/http://www.artic.edu:80/aic/? to http://www.artic.edu/aic/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828033206/http://www.art.dostweb.com/ to http://www.art.dostweb.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conceptual art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516162830/http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/conceptualart.html to http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/conceptualart.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artic.edu/aic/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Although conceptual art is at least as controversial as any other prominent new philosophy of art has been since at least the 19th century, there is currently *no* meaningful criticism in the article, no discussion of controversy around conceptual art except a few scattered apologetics for it, no discussion on artistic debate about conceptual art and little to no discussion of counter-movements. Currently, this is essentially an advertisement for conceptual art, not an encyclopedic treatment. Going over the edit history, the addition of criticism, even sourced, is consistently removed. This results in a badly unbalanced article that is strongly POV-pushing. This article is currently well below the quality standards that should be expected of it for the above reasons. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked through the past 10 years of edits, the only contribution to criticism of conceptual art was a multi-paragraph un-sourced addition, added in April 2023, which was then removed due to no sources being provided. If you have sources to support the re-addition of the paragraphs, please cite them when adding a criticism section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoroughly unbalanced 

message: I think it would be good for somebody with the knowledge and patience required to go through the Further Reading section and thin it out a bit. There is a lot there and I suspect that some are minor publications of marginal value. We want to direct our readers to a few relevant publications not saddle them with a mile long reading list that might not all be worth their time. DanielRigal (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading section is getting bloated