How We Understand Conceptual Art

I always used to rely on the word “concept” literally and consider conceptual art as any type of work of art that carry a meaning or narration that I could perceive and apply it to real life including realistic artworks. Based on this point of view I was wondering if I can consider a piece as art when I was not able to read the work, especially when my mind couldn’t accommodate it into my traditionally formed definition of how an art work should be. Then I could understand and enjoy the art that was definable within my pre-set perception about art: art is transforming a medium to a form of representation. Then my commonsense ontology was able to appreciate an artwork that has a physical accessible medium for me as a viewer. Everything that has been had perceptible resemblance to what is considered work of art within traditional notion of aesthetic and its definition of art to me have been assumed as art work. I was very skeptical and felt desperately confused when I saw people and art history texts were so raving about Duchamp’s Fountain or Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. 

I used to think for a long time about those texts sticking on the gallery’s wall that I could also see them in a book or paper or on a shop board, they I got totally lost in finding a reason to this question: why an art gallery accepted to put this show? How it could be art? I was confused because something inside me kept telling me that there should be a reason, it’s not possible that everyone is wrong but I didn’t have any answer to it.

Andy Warhol - Brillo Boxes - 1964

I believe many art viewers are struggling with some basic yet important questions when it comes to conceptual art. Questions such as what “conceptual” means? How it differs from other types of art? Why artists don’t make anything? If building process and skill doesn't matter in conceptual art what should I appreciate? Is putting some daily objects together and make a story for it being considered as conceptual art? Why conceptual art projects are lacking visual pleasure? And some other questions of this sort.

I learned that art cannot be precisely defined and like many other concepts in life such as love, sport, kindness, ugliness, etc. has a very elusive hard to grab definition. We actually cannot pin down art in a pre-defined frame any more as of emergence of conceptual art.

I learned how to read a work of art and how to explore work-narrative as the main characteristic aspect of a piece of art. Put it simple, I can say that conceptual art caused the context and narrative to become the essence of artwork same as of human being. Humans without context and narration are robots, there is no human being without those and this is the only way we can recognize people from each other and not just physical characteristics. Even if we have not met someone yet, we can tell what kind of person they art from the history and context they have been through, no matter how they look like. Conceptual art has acquired similar identity recognition so we don’t judge an artwork referring to our object model anymore. Our ontological commonsense has totally fractured and reformed since of emergence of conceptual art. 

Now to me the medium don’t carry the mere means and I sometimes don’t even see the medium, I’m looking for the purpose of the medium being there. Having said that, I also learned that conceptual art is not a style or even a movement. Conceptual art is that sort of a proposition, intervention, documentation, or linguistic representation that would try to cross some specific point through which we experience the whole piece. Viewer’s way of communication with the artwork is the most appealing aspect of conceptual art. The way that the viewer live the concept and interact with it and the way the viewer interpret the piece toward their own assumptions. 

I would say where the viewer-artwork communication is concern there is two phenomenological accounts that can be discussed. First of all the work-narrative would take the viewer into the artwork story and cause them to share and combine their own story within the piece and through a state of self-consciousness feel themselves as the artwork and vise versa. This is a very strong binding through which the viewer appreciates their own interpretation of the work then eventually becomes part of the artwork. The other approach would eliminate the medium and put the viewer at the heart of artwork without any physical interference. The viewer is set free to the philosophy and mere meaning of the artwork to explore, experience, live, love, hate, or make mistakes. This side would provoke many feelings and thoughts in the viewer which may not lead to an answer but challenge both logical and emotional sides of the viewer. Sometimes the viewers might be engaged with the piece they have seen for several day after they first saw the work. The viewer lives with the artwork to hold a better recognition over it over time but still there are ambiguity and question that conceptual artworks leave the viewer with. This makes the conceptual art time-less.

So we can tell the appreciation of conceptual art doesn't match any formula and is not possible to point it out clearly. Conceptual art acts like a puzzle or maze in contemporary life that challenges its viewers to resolve the problems they face when they view a work of art. I personally like to call conceptual art as the transition passage for art to get to a more mature level. Maybe that’s why it leaves us with so many questions.