{"id":3201,"date":"2012-11-29T23:23:26","date_gmt":"2012-11-30T04:23:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/greynotgrey.com\/blog\/?p=3201"},"modified":"2019-07-09T09:49:09","modified_gmt":"2019-07-09T13:49:09","slug":"is-instagram-conceptual-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/greynotgrey.com\/blog\/2012\/11\/29\/is-instagram-conceptual-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Instagram Conceptual Art?"},"content":{"rendered":"

So, I was talking with a friend today about\u00a0conceptual art<\/a>\u00a0and it got me to thinking. Before I go on at great length, it’s worthwhile to briefly describe what conceptual art is. In 1967, Sol Lewitt, one of the original great proponents of the movement described it thusly:<\/p>\n

In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.
\n-Sol Lewitt<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To grossly oversimplify, the premise behind conceptual art is that the artistic concept is more important than the art object, to the extent (in some cases) that the art object itself is not only secondary but essentially unnecessary. This, for \u00a0example, is a conceptual art “painting” by Joesph Kosuth.<\/p>\n

\"Joseph<\/a>

Joseph Kosuth – Art as Idea as Idea (1967)<\/p><\/div>\n

Personally I look at most forms of modernism and especially conceptualism as a “get it?” moment. It’s not that this kind of art is a joke, but that it relies on the same reflex of juxtaposition and inversion as a joke does. Modernism is essentially reactive. Conceptualism is the event horizon of modernism as defined by such “great men” as Clement Greenberg<\/a> who advocated art for art’s sake, claiming that painting (for instance) should avoid anything except “pure” painting – no perspective, no external subject, no picture plane, no frame… Essentially conceptualism goes one step further and has no object. Get it? I mean, yes, it does make me laugh, but I understand that it’s serious. There’s an undeniable undercurrent of humour, but hey, much of wit and cleverness is based in humour to some extent.<\/p>\n

\"Throwing<\/a>

Throwing Three Balls In The Air To Get A Straight Line (Best Of Thirty-Six Attempts) – John Baldessari<\/p><\/div>\n

Within conceptual art the role of photography is traditionally documentary (see the Baldessari above). \u00a0Art photography is another thing altogether. When looking at art photography, a lot of it simply seems to be “well this may look like a snapshot to you but I intend it as art”. To me, this sounds like conceptual art. This bears some explanation.\u00a0Not to be confused with\u00a0conceptual photography<\/a>, where the photographer is setting up scenes or whatever to communicate a specific idea as opposed to documentary art photography (not to be confused with photography used to document art as in the Baldessari above)\u00a0. Documentary art photography is stuff like the work of Ansel Adams<\/a>, while \u00a0conceptual art photography is stuff like the work of\u00a0Cindy Sherman<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Ansel<\/a>

Ansel Adams – Yosemite | Cindy Sherman – Film Still 21<\/p><\/div>\n

Back to my earlier comment –\u00a0positioning work that looks like snapshots as art simply because that’s your intent sounds like conceptual art to me.\u00a0For instance, talking about art photography, I’m really into surfaces, and I look for interesting juxtapositions of form and texture, often incorporating light and reflection. It’s not documentary photography, I don’t think, in that I’m capturing fleeting impressions. I do call it art. However, I’m often snapping pics on auto with my cheapo point-and-shoot or instagramming off my iPod (not even an iPhone) so it’s not like the shot is about craft – especially as my main means of dissemination is through social media. These, for example, are a few of my instagram shots.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t