This has led to a degradation of painting. Rather than painting be and end into itself, it’s regarded as just one tool an artist can have. Work on the idea. Read French Theory. Then use whatever visual means you have to illustrate the words. Or not. If you can’t create anything visually, appropriate something. There is plenty of visual material out there already. It’s like clip-art.

In many cases, good ideas are better served through discussion, rather than some poorly conceived installation. Too much of conceptualism (neo or otherwise), is pseudo-psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc., or criticism of current events.

I’m not against conceptualism I’m just against conceptualism eclipsing aesthetics.

The pieces you talked about don’t sound completely thought out, but keep in mind that these are artists that are working consistently on creating a certain kind of moment and much like a painter they should be allowed to explore their language and figure out how to get all of the pieces in place. There are many works along these lines that are also well conceived and executed: Gordon Matta Clark and Carol Goodden’s FOOD project. Matta-Clarks Pig, Rirkrit Tiravanija’s work, Stefany Goldberg’s dinner party…

We live in a post-modern world where context is king and anything can be art. I do not want to discuss the merits of if it is art or not. The real question is if it is good or not and that has to be answered on a piece-by-piece basis. If you feel there is a curator taking on this sort of work blithely, call them out on it, but to dismiss this entire genre, is a mistake. Or to cast it as “There is some good Neo-Conceptual art out there but most of it seems trite and any visual tools are secondary and only have to help illustrate the artist’s point” seems inappropriate for that work as it is about the experience and quite honestly I could say the same thing about any other discipline of work.

In terms of it being by the artist hand, I would like to mention that really since Duchamp that hasn’t mattered–It didn’t matter for Warhol, or Koons, or Pardo and I think you would have a really tough time kicking them out of cannon based on that thought. I would also go as far to say that what is considered the artist hand has greatly increased over the last 100 years and when it comes to a more ephemeral practice the artist hand is used to create a moment and usually there is as much work and planning going into that moment as there is an object.

I would also take issue with the idea that this is the sort of work that is getting all of the attention. I didn’t see any of these performances for sale at the last Sotheby’s auction. I don’t see galleries lining up to represent this sort of artist on a wide-scale. Art Forum is still dedicated mostly to painting, sculpture, and installation….

This is a huge factor in the current state of affairs. It’s leveled the playing field so that those without talent and ability can be as important as those that do.

Duchamp’s work (or rather, point) was an end-game. Instead, it’s been used to not only make aesthetics subservient to theory, but has made aesthetics all but irrelevant in art. There is no need to create anything, visually. One can just appropriate images since they are a “natural resource.”

Unfortunately, since we’re talking about art, the theory doesn’t even have to be good. “It’s not philosophy. It’s art.” Art then becomes an excuse for mediocrity. As long as the right buzzwords are in place and the right topics (globalism, politics, war, climate change, etc. [Did I mention globalism?]) are discussed, we’re good. The artist can than focus on more important things like creating and promoting her or his brand and careerism.

I have mentioned before, that I see a divide and conquer attitude in the art industry. Too much division and protectionism, it breeds bad politics. When will we ever see this industry unite.

Why would a gallery refuse to show work, even one piece for one week, under the fear that it won’t sell. Why, do they sell so much already and if so, would that not be an incentive to bring in more work. If they are not selling, well maybe give someone else a try.

The art schools promoting their students, well at what expense? Here come to our institution, we back you up even if you have no talent or imagination or something to say, as long as you pay the tuition! Great reputation!

The museums, well lets have movie and popcorn night instead of showing artwork, or have a brew and view. Hell, let the bars and movie theaters have classical music and show sculpture and paintings and discuss the course of humanity! The MOMA features the work of rap artists, fine, except their thinking is to raise the attendance to their institution. I’ll be right over! Oh wait, not my demographics, hip hoppers, teens, you know the ones who have a real interest in spending time in a museum to check out past cultures.

The media, well lets wine and dine them till they say yes. Good thing theres’ no limits on gifting there.

Then there is Cow town, I mean Chicago, the Monet netted more money for the city, in one show than sports in one year. City response, hey how bout them bears! Even Bush said then was plenty of art on a label of Millers Light beer. burp!

You see there is still a lot of public education to go.

sorry for this rant, good night

What is a psychologist? One who has been taught, practices and brings real value. What is value? A measure of relevance, development, importance.

So the first question has to do with accomplishment (not of individual but of humanity) and the second question has to do with a level of value (less or greater value).

So art, if a greater accomplishment of humanity, is a greater value. Found objects, inflated stories, etc, would that not require less accomplishment and lesser value?

So there is “room” for the toilet, but I would not what to be the one who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a balloon, just because it sat in a castle or museum.

Call me an artist or not, a good artist or a no talent, I know what I put into my work and it is sad when the popularity gets the attention. It’s like waiting for an earth quake before we can muster some empathy.

My original language is French, we spoke it at home, I had to learn to speak English before starting 1st grade, I’m a Chicago born artist.
I researched and found the original text by artist Duchamp, regarding the urinal, read it over and over, in my opinion he really meant to say how foolish the art world was becoming, losing it’s sight on the meaning of what is art. By “ready made” he meant, that if we just pick something up and call it art, is it art. Has anyone every wondered why he used a urinal, well it is an old French expression of insult, kind of like saying, bulsht.

I’m a watercolorist by love and a graphic artist by trade. I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t into art; it has always been in my blood. I paint for myself, computer graphics pays the bills.

My daughter Ashley (a fine artist in her own right) and myself have a wonderful game we play whenever the new Art in America magazine arrives. We call it the Crap Game. It’s about the only thing Art in America is really good for other then driving real artists to suicide.

Please keep in mind my subscription to Art in America was not purchased by myself but was a gift from a wonderful, much loved and well meaning aunt. Anyway, I’m sure everyone will want to get involved as soon as possible, so without further ado here is how to play.

The rules are flexible, you can do exactly as we do or go totally free-form, the choice is yours and yours alone. There is really no wrong way to play but the fun factor depends much on the company you keep. Special Note: although the Crap Game may be played alone it is always better with one or two close artistic friends.

To play the game simply obtain a copy of Art in America. As an artist you may say “hey, I can’t afford pricy high class magazines like Art in America. Not to worry my friends, they can most often be had for free. You may find a copy lining the bottom of a bird cage, being used as uber classy “Bum TP” or most often sitting predominately on the coffee tables of the rich and clueless.

Once you have procured your very own illustrious copy of Art in America, sit with your friend/friends and simply turn the pages one by one in quick succession crying out your split-second opinion of each picture as the alleged artwork passes by your wondering eyes. The game should sound something like this; Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Art, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Art, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap.

Ashley and I both noticed a funny thing about this game. Not only is it lots of fun, leads to uproarious laughter at the expense of the “truly crappy” and brings the family closer together. The real funny thing is, usually when the word “art” was uttered it is in reference to a beautiful oil, acrylic, watercolor or sculpture featured in one of the copious advertisements and not the “art” that Art in America thought we should be interested in.

Seems a lot of the stuff that sells and can thus afford the rather pricey ad fees is actually well thought out and beautifully executed by someone with talent.

Funny how that works out. Keep the faith, paint for yourselves’, the rest be damned.

Sincerely, Bill