It has long struck me that successful conceptual art relies more on branding than aesthetics. Perhaps all art. But it is in conceptual art that branding is more pronounced because so very often that is the only thing on display.
Writing in The New York Times, Dennis Dutton gets at some of these issues in an interesting op-ed piece. He also reminds us of the origins of conceptual art and why today’s practitioners lack a certain authenticity, or even relevance:
“Since the endearingly witty Marcel Duchamp invented conceptual art 90 years ago by offering his ‘ready-mades’ — a urinal or a snow shovel, for instance — for gallery shows, the genre has degenerated. Duchamp, an authentic artistic genius, was in 1917 making sport of the art establishment and its stuffy values. By the time we get to 2009, Mr. Hirst and Mr. Koons are the establishment.”
And what of the poor schmoes who pay eight-figure sums for today’s conceptual flavor of the day? Dutton remarks:
“Future generations, no longer engaged by our art ‘concepts’ and unable to divine any special skill or emotional expression in the work, may lose interest in it as a medium for financial speculation and relegate it to the realm of historical curiosity.
“In this respect, I can’t help regarding medicine cabinets, vacuum cleaners and dead sharks as reckless investments. Somewhere out there in collectorland is the unlucky guy who will be the last one holding the vacuum cleaner, and wondering why.”
No comments:
Post a Comment