The influence of a formal conceptual legacy are profound and still in play, altering art making practice for the foreseeable future. What this future looks like is a core concern to many artists who are doing the deep thinking. There is a utilitarian side to recent conceptual practice which I respond to more and more, and find keenly relevant as a direction which factors in the unthinkable. In this equation, the ‘Intention’ is a sub set of the “Idea” and the ‘Outcome’ is to be as ‘Effective’ as possible. The ‘Idea’ is always in the foreground, but it is coupled with an authentic and ephemeral emotional moment, the artist’s mystery, if you will and a bit like the philosopher’s stone. This crystallization of ‘Intention’ is the ‘Epiphany’, when artist/audience simultaneously recognize that an intangible essence which ‘matters’ has occurred. It is more than dematerialization. For an artist it is about the need to get the real deal into your head, and then shoot it back out with a vengeance and connect so those who are part of the moment will never forget. This is made tangible and can be seen. Lastly there is the need for proof, the burden of proof for the absurdity of what the artist has been doing, a denouement which imparts meaning to life. While it may all sound too Christian, it is really a very old mythic progression updated to secular culture, tried and true.
I am interested in the arc of conceptual practice from the late 1960’s when it was linked to the student protest movements in Europe and the United States anti war movement. We are again in war- time, this installment brought on in part by the United States and Great Britain. Regional conflicts are threatening to expand uncontrollably as super powers throw their technological might around, and the possibility of terrible social collapse and destruction causes great unease and uncertainty in all of us. The stakes are high. It is very difficult if not impossible to make art, much less think about it, in a country overrun by warfare. Artists’ responses to the actions of the warrior class of technocrats are a litmus test for the future. Conceptual practice has a humanistic purpose as one distinct aspect, and I enjoy seeing philosophy return into the collective and increasingly thoughtful discussions amongst creative thinkers. Any kind of work and possibility can take place in this embrace, in this tolerance.
War creates new languages and belief systems. As an antidote to insanity we can propose the idea of ‘Generativity’, in which the individual gives back more to their community than they take out of it. This simple, proactive premise leads me to think that personal responsibility is the currency of authentic conceptual practice, and now is the time to respond with greater urgency to issues of social justice; to think them through, ask questions and provide some answers. Some conceptual practice must have a moral dimension. It is imperative and I have great faith in the questions and answers artists do provide. We are fighting for survival at five minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock. That does sound dramatic even to me, but if you speak with young persons they are disgusted with what they are being handed. There are ways to regroup.
Implicit in our critical moment is the rejection of being “ineffective” as a viable strategy for artistic production, and it is worth looking at what that may be, because a lot of conceptual practice has hung its hat on this latter premise. Discussions about the market place are ‘ineffective’ causing corrosive competition instead of shared solutions; work so internalized it cannot be shared is ‘ineffective’ and a solitary confinement; creating languages that are a closed circuit shared by a few are not only ‘ineffective’ but grossly elitist, fascistic and (the unkindest cut of all) unbecoming of a 21st century artist. If you cannot communicate, you should get out of the business and do something else.
When artists are less singular, insular, and self referential, the world is a better place. We stop talking about who is selling out, who/what has been commodified. No one will remember whether Jeff Koons was cynically manipulating the market or not while claiming conceptual credibility. It has no importance except that the conversation goes to the heart of personal responsibility and whether an artist can live with themselves or not. That is solely the artists decision. If they make the wrong one, their work inescapably sucks. This current level of ‘professional’ critique is absurd when we are in a high stakes moment and half the world is at war. Whether conceptual practice should be purpose driven is ultimately debatable, but at all costs artists must stick right now to conceiving big ideas, asking big questions, providing big answers, and let the little ones slide. Collectively, conceptual work needs to not get lost in the woods and must stay in the daylight. Any strategy that succeeds at this is OK by me. If, in a contemporary ethos, the’ Idea’ is the artist’s salvation, lord knows artists are clinging to intellectual life by a thread. Appropriating the ‘lost in the woods metaphor’, from the opening stanza of the Inferno, I think Dante would understand what I am talking about. He did not give a shit about the small ideas populating the art world around him then, and neither do I with ours.
Looking at the life stages of the conceptual ‘vocation’ as an arc, the names change. What began in the 1960’s as ‘Conceiver’ turned into the dedicated ‘Art Workers’ of the 70’s and 80’s, and then morphed into the entrepreneurial ‘Cultural Producers’ of the 90’s and beyond. They include in their work the simultaneous roles of practicing artist, designer, mediator, project facilitator, writer/cultural commentator, curator, arts administrator, and fundraiser, all part of the tool box. Underlying this role-playing evolution are the functions of cultural/institutional critique and action/implementation. A central critique would be, ‘what is needed now from conceptual artists?’ This asks them to take responsibility for more than themselves and make a strong response with concrete ideas.
Conceptual production reflects its time and cultural setting. Military conflict drowns out Beauty, the pure idea. The evolution of conceptual production is a reflection of how much energy is needed from artists to be heard at all in a time of war. It is not just a function of being visible in the market place, it is about being ‘effective.’ I am describing a motivated ‘Idea Person’, involved to a high degree with facilitation. The means of production are entirely in the hands of the artist, if they want it. Through the functions of mediator and designer a viable context forms, and provides a basis for fresh ideas that can be put into practice with a high degree of personal authenticity and generosity. We have a plethora of multi-tasking artists who create the equivalent of 17th century ‘follies’, self interested spectacle for the fuck of it for a wealthy class of patrons. This is not what I am talking about. Important cultural production, what is being practiced now by the most interesting artists, relies on the notion that conceptual practice creates its own alternative ‘space’ with a sense of communality. This dialectic returns to the ineffable ‘Idea’, in tandem with effective, coherent action connecting with other people in a substantive way. The precision of artist’s choices becomes more than crucial. I find the ability of conceptual practice to open up larger cultural conversations which parlay into understanding, connection, and intelligence both appropriate and absolutely necessary. The wars outside and within us are not going to end anytime soon, so the biggest ‘idea’ is to continue with the ‘work’, to not give up, to leave something of worth as proof you were there.