On Conceptual Work

The problems I (and most others, I think) have with the heavily conceptual work that is so prevalent on the scene here is that it is totally inaccessible without any provided expanation. In most cases there is no sort of posted information, so the viewer is left to ponder arcane references and generally leaves the gallery frustrated and a little angry. How readily available should references be? How obvious should an artist make the idea? Way too much obfuscation in the name of “subtlety” I think. The best ideas translate easily- I think that has been constant from Michelangelo to Kosuth (with regards to Kosuth, some may beg to differ here, but I would say that they are expecting more than there is). More hints please, less defensiveness in revealing meaning, and less ridiculous rhetoric when there is some elucidation.
On the other hand, of course, is the terrible fallacy of artists who slap their paint around, insisting that each swooping brush-stroke is invested with sublime meaning. It is this approach that is panned as “decoration,” (to my mind one of the harshest criticisms to someone who asserts anything more than a visual veneer) which leads to the reductionist strategies of many artists seeking truth.


So.. all this leads me to my current problems, trying to decide what is necessary and what’s not… and then sometimes being dissatisfied that the result does not meet my aesthetic expectations. Also the sticking problem of being too literal- if I am trying to express an idea of something beyond detectability existing, it does not make a whole lot of sense to visualize this thing, because then it’s detectable! Hinting at the idea seems the only way; leading up to but not actually delineating the resolution. Tricky. And then I still want to work with certain materials. On top of all this there are some practicalities to take into account- for instance trying to use uv light in a room with regular light, and the issues I run into with infinite quantities that don’t translate well into real-world materials (at least in the studio). Infinitesimals are a little easier, but I am forced to use both.
Finally, I find myself questioning myself about who/what I am trying to emulate/ how do I really want my art to be. The second Triangle panel discussion involved the panelists rebuking students for looking at Chelsea artists (for example) and emulating them or those who are big on the international fair/biennale circuit. I think it is important to see what’s going on and to determine for yourself what’s quality work, and not to try to angle your perspective towards the market, but still, some of this seems inevitable and also necessary to be relevant or to pose a good counter-position.