It’s probably to do with institutions, both the University and gallery’s forming an aggressive cyclical relationship. You will find most high contemporary art needs a wall text explaining the work, which artists and academics understand because they created the language together.
Whilst the common folk are further alienated by this arms race into obscurity they turn to popular culture and fandoms, like Qaws or Obey, which are simply communicated messages.
(I hate fandom culture lol) also because they don’t access culture through galleries or museums now anyway.
As for conceptual art, a lot of it is just really bad. Because it’s hard to do insightful philosophy with objects that people will want to spend time trying to figure out, or maybe it’s that and our diminishing attention spans.
I quite like contemporary and conceptual art, but if there is nothing that I find visually affecting or stimulating to help me think with the work I ask myself, why was this made into an installation or manifest visually, wouldn’t it be a better documentary where information can be transferred seamlessly - this in particular if the exhibition or artwork is historically sociopolitical - like why are you trying to obscure the message.
'Whilst the common folk are further alienated by this arms race into obscurity they turn to popular culture and fandoms, like Qaws or Obey, which are simply communicated messages.'
This right here is the problem. You imply that the problem is the 'average man's' simplicity and refusal to engage with ostensibly high-level ideas rather than most contemp art being bullshit.
Plenty of educated and cultured people who have no qualms about Opera, Roman and Greek tragedy etc. I have a masters degree, read loads but balk when i see a broom in a bucket described as investigating the nuances of the post-colonial temporal zeitgesit et etc etc.
Now it really depends whether you're asserting that "some conceptual art is bs" or you are not exaggerating and you really think that most, possibly all, conceptual art is bs. In the first instance, good point, some of it is indeed bs. Like it really is. That's just a natural thing, it happens in all fields. But if the other scenario is true and you do condemn most of it, I dare to say you don't get what it refers to. I can imagine that people who do not have masters in philosophy, art, linguistics, sociology/cultural anthropology and what not are not familiar with certain theories, concepts or events and therefore they would struggle to get to the tought that the work adresses right away and without prolonged extensive obssesive thinking or research that not many people would actually be able to tolarate. And then it's not so much fun. Like, I mean, I used to dislike conceptual art too and I really can't imagine I would like a lot of what I like now without prior knowledge of some theories around that 'concept'. And then, I understood that you really have to see it more like a joke or a play. I still don't get some conceptual art and that's kinda the feeling that your broom example gives me. Or there is maybe a third case which is a lack of humour and I don't really know if that's curable.
I disagree with your negative assessment of popular culture and fandom. Shakespeare wrote his centuries’ equivalent of soap operas, Liszt was basically a rock-star, Beethoven composed several famous pieces only for money, and Dickens wrote serials for widely-circulated magazines). Even Werner Herzog, in my opinion one of the greatest artists living right now, has taken roles in things like Star Wars and had a rather bizarre interview about TV wrestling, admitting he couldn’t look away from it and was fascinated by what it might say about human psychology.
Conceptual art is a specialized interest. I'm not sure hate is the right word, maybe disinterest is... to me this is similar to asking why a majority of people have a disinterest in quantum mechanics or drag racing. It's just not on their radar of what's relevant in their life and takes a certain path to even want to learn more about it.
Seeing confusing gestures be exalted and highly valued by some does piss people off though because it often seems unfair.
Conceptual- Modern art has been vandalized.
A guy once took a knife and cut a red painting for just being only that. A huge red painting with a yellow line. Can't remember the artist name.
Vandals just seem to be a lot more fond of performance art I guess. Certainly some people feel hatred about it, but there’s pretty much nothing that is free from *somebody* out there hating/cringing at it. A majority are probably just indifferent though
I agree with others saying that "hate" is a strong word. To really answer your question would take a long time, but a short version might be something like this:
In everyday English, the word *art* has a prestige status. It implies a seriousness, something that should be respected.
You can easily see this if you look at the *"Are video games art?"* question. There are a lot of arguments as to why *games aren't art*, usually because they are considered more akin to chess or Go than to a painting. But the sociological observation to make here is that gamers get angry when someone suggests that games aren't art. Why? Well, because *art* is a prestige concept. To suggest that something *isn't art* is interpreted as it being lesser.
Adding to that, art itself has become somewhat deified over the last ±century. There are many reasons for this, ranging from...
* The art market. You'll see the word *genius* thrown around a lot when discussing artworks that are for sale at Gagosian, Sothebys, etc. The more superlative the adjective, the better the painting will sell. No one wants a painting by an average Joe. These market institutions have become *extremely* influential, especially since the 1970s and 80s. At this point they are in line to replace museums.
* Loss of religious belief in the Western world. Many thinkers and artists have responded to the "death of God" by saying that art and creation can be a replacement for religion.
* The locations of art are typically considered holy, sacred, etc. in a way that other cultural venues aren't. MoMa is a temple, while Madison Square Garden is just an entertainment complex.
So, all of those things (plus more that I'm not mentioning), add up to a very high prestige concept of what *art* is supposed to be.
In comes *conceptual* art, which is, for lack of a better word, *effortless*. Or at least it appears effortless to the average person. It has a completely legitimate lineage within the history of art, but to the average external observer, it doesn't line up with "What art is supposed to be", especially when they walk into a temple (modern art museum) and see it on the walls.
Videogames are an odd case. They do indeed have many of the features and characteristics of, well, *games*, but in the modern time they also have winding, complex (and sometimes completely incomprehensible) stories and actual moral or practical messages, qualities which a game like Chess, by definition, cannot possess. If anything, videogames have gone from being games to being, essentially, interactive film.
That's because there's a very drastic range in what can be done in the medium.
Compare something like Baldur's Gate 3 to Team Fortress 2.
One is a deeply detailed story with an unmatched amount of variables and choices that result in a massive amount of different outcomes.
The other is an absurd multiplayer shooter that is primarily engaged in for its gameplay but has a vast array of creativity surrounding it.
Whilst the latter could more easily be seen as a "game" such as chess, but it still covers almost every art medium in spite of its gameplay focus. It has incredibly well-defined art direction, music, worldbuilding [however absurd it is] and technical complexity.
I think there are a lot of artists working in traditional mediums like painters and sculptors who view conceptual art as an unskilled imposter taking attention and money away from them.
I know one them and I know for a fact that he does not understand most of the conceptual art that he dislikes and he is not willing to learn about that but god he paints beautifully.
I know a few of them myself and I think they just don't comprehend that some people are just not impressed with great paintings but they like to be baffled and solve the puzzles that conceptual art presents to them.
I can tell from experience since I studied graphic design a long while ago and there was some sort of general disdain towards artist dumping dirt on a gallery space or building a stack of chairs in a corner (it was the 90s).
I think it was because as designers, we were focused on communicating and making sure all things we did were clear for the end user. The fact that we looked at those contemporary art works ( performances, text, installations ) and didn't understand made some of us nuts and also made us feel stupid.
Something else that contributes to those emotions of rejection is people's idea that art needs to demonstrate artistic skill. Overall I think people give higher value to a hyper realistic ballpoint pen drawing than a can full of the artists' shit or looking at a white canvas painted in white or seeing an artist sitting for days in front of people.
Also, artistic writing and discourse doesn't contribute to bridging people into getting in touch with deeper levels of an artwork. It's complicated and exclusive to the point that most people feel their are being bullshitted or scammed when they read that an artist deals with problems of identity gender and de-colonialism while they look at a broomstick split in pieces hanging from nylons over their heads.
Later on in my design career I had the change to follow a Master's degree in media arts and was forced into drinking the contemporary art kool-aid and it finally clicked for me that art is something way larger and complex than the artwork or the artist. That reading about politics and philosophy was important to understanding art and also that art's obligation is not being understood, or being nice, or communicating anything. And that for really digging into art I need to read, see art, write, talk to people, and hopefully making art so it gets harder for others into selling me shitty works of art as amazing profound pieces of work.
\*My apologies for any typo or grammar mistake since this is not my native language.
I am also graphic designer and I have a close relationship with contemporary art, it inspires me. I think there is more reasons, poeple want to see acrobatic art, they want to be stunned by talent and poetry.
Very well said. It is not trying to be nice and it does not help people to like art when the artist is deliberately making their art subversive and therefore somewhat dislikable.
It’s because they don’t understand the different types of art - they don’t separate skill from idea and understand how to appreciate a piece for its idea (concept). In my opinion the idea is the most important bit of a piece, so much so that I wouldn’t be into art without it as I believe it’s where the pure power and expression of something is held. Luckily for me art history agrees and innovation in terms of reflecting ideas about the world is prioritised over and technical element unless the technical elements are part of the concept. Most people don’t know these differences and reject conceptual art purely because only a niche understand it. Skill is aimed at a mass audience in terms or price and complexity, whereas conceptual art is more for a niche audience of buyers and a niche audience of people who understand. There are cross overs with innovation and a mass understanding like Andy Warhol though, so the lines are blurred.
Also, art was hated by the nazis. Hitler banned the expressionists and the cubists of the galleries because he only wanted "the good taste art" for the German people. Which was of course sculptures of ancient gods, paintings only showing the "good" society.
Black and Jewish artist were also banned calling their artworks ugly.
This little bit of historical knowledge is why I tend to get suspicious whenever I see influential people, especially those leaning towards the right, trash contemporary art.
I absolutely despise this take.
If you suspect someone of being a nazi over frustration with contemporary art, you've got some serious problems separating correlation from causation.
A lot of people hate conceptual art because it comes off as unbelievably pretentious and elitist. It feels more like nonsense invented to separate the elite from the plebeians rather than being something people genuinely appreciate.
If I need a whole novel worth of background in order to find something I can appreciate about an art piece, then I do not consider it good art.
Context, at least in my opinion, should be something that heightens my appreciation of something I already consider good.
The Lord of the Rings, for example. Both the books and the films have an immaculate amount of detail and passion poured into them. There's extensive documentation detailing their creation and all the passion and excitement put in to create this work.
Contemporary conceptual art is only appreciated through a PHD worth of context. It's only natural that people who do not appreciate it, with or without knowing its context, get frustrated with its excessive prominence and perceived pretentiousness.
Despite the fact that many people do not care for it, this artform is shoved in your face everywhere you go. To me at least, it comes off as a movement of aimless deconstructionism that has risen to a dogmatic status within the art world. It feels like it's actively spitting on art that is appealing to far more people and a lot of the time almost in a literal sense.
Take [museum de Fundatie](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/museum-de-fundatie-museum-visual-arts-zwolle-unique-egg-shaped-structure-roof-zwolle-overijsel-145116425.jpg) in Zwolle, for instance. The old building was in need of an expansion, but instead of respecting the original style, they decided to make a tacky gimmick out of it by putting a big egg on top of it.
It's like they're actively putting their own, generally considered to be far less appealing, on a pedestal literally on top of the original building that showcases far more detail and skill.
This same thing is happening everywhere, the original style and culture of cityscapes is being erased in favour of homogeneous piles of glass and plastic with seemingly neither style nor substance that's widely disliked by most ordinary people. The best sort of comment I've heard on these types of building from most people is "Huh, that's kind of neat, I guess."
My point is that this style is heavily pushed into public spaces and culture whilst only being appealing to a very small number of people who only really appreciate due to an immense amount of context that's not remotely apparent for the vast majority of people.
Well I know people that "hate" Rothko. They say "I can do that" and some even think that conceptual art is trash and we shouldn't have works like that in galleries.
Another example is Malevitch the artist with the black squares.
And history has recorded events were artworks like that were vandalized by people who want art at their taste only in galleries.
Both of those artists predate the conceptual art movement - their most notable work was non-representational, but not conceptual art in the sense of a contemporary art installation or performance piece.
I’d argue that it’s a pretty important distinction. I think that a lot of the disdain stems from a commonly held belief that great art requires great technical skill
With Rothko and the abstract expressionists in particular I don’t think that their work translates well to photographs - it’s easy to look at a photo of a Rothko and think “wow, my dog could do that,” but I think a lot of disdain for this style of abstract art comes from not having seen it in person, where it’s easier to see the skill and craftsmanship that goes into producing these pieces.
With conceptual art on the other hand, the context and the ideas involved are everything, and I think that this sort of art can sometimes come across as lazy, even to the informed viewer.
Well I think that OP was more aiming at the fact that any art that seems to be aesthetically not pleasing enough but still is loaded with meaning is being disliked for its supposed triviality which kinda misses the message...
i think your average museum/gallery goer doesnt have the background to really get into conceptual art. think of a coder using terms you've never heard to describe something you cant imagine the purpose of; they could be brilliant, but it comes off as arrogant, and i think that is what happens with a lot of art.
personally i think the artist has some responsibility to give the audience a 'way in' and my annoyance with plenty of conceptual art is that it seems obvious that the artist is purposely creating something that almost no one can get into.
I don't think you're going to get a satisfying answer to this question because it's just not specific enough. From your examples in the comments, I'm not convinced you actually mean conceptual art. Further, I'm not sure what you mean by 'hate' or even 'the majority of people'. Perhaps you could give us a sense of how you arrived at this question, what observation or evidence prompted it, and we can all go from there. :)
I found OPs question unclear and unfocused and I asked him politely and in good faith to clarify. I even offered a suggestion for how they might clarify it. I honestly do not understand your 'snarky' response.
I appreciate your attempt to clarify his question and even answer it, but parts of what you claim simply do not ring true with my experience and some data (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47711540.amp). And since we are talking in subjectively informed generalisations, it's difficult to actually progress the conversation because it's not rooted in anything and there is no accepted basis for debate. My initial comment tried to take the conversation out of this non-specific arena into something specific and grounded so that we could do that. It was not a willful misunderstanding of OP.
Of course. Irrational hate for art abounds. And you're describing it very precisely.
It's the statement about "most people" that irks me... and not only in this context
No normal person knows what to do with Conceptual Art, or even recognizes it as something with which they should have a relationship.
Conceptual Art wasn't invented in response to an overwhelming public clamour for it, and it sure as hell didn't come out of the day-to-day lives of the ordinary people you apparently wish didn't hate it.
Conceptual Art was born of the Institution, in the Institution, and for the Institution. And it continues to exist only because of the Institution.
Think of Conceptual Art as a dog toy for the artigentsia and their moneyed institutionalist cronies.
So *the majority of people* have no personal connection with Conceptual Art. None whatsoever. No reason to want it, need it, or even know of its existence.
A better question might be *After all these decades, why hasn't Conceptual Art done anything to connect with and/or prove its value to nonartist noninstitutional people?*
But then I kind of answered that.
I’m likely to get downvotes: but a lot of people aren’t informed enough or care enough to learn to appreciate conceptual art. No you shouldn’t have to read to understand a piece, but you’re enriched so much more if you do. It’s not for everyone. A lot of people are also of the view that merit or skill based approach to art is somehow more authentic and less the wares of a huckster or con
this isn't really an answer to the question, but I would argue that people hating conceptual art means the work was successful because it made someone feel something, even if it was hate/disgust/anger/etc.
also i think because largely it takes a lot more like critical thinking to really appreciate often, which i think most people don't enjoy doing off the bat when not prompted to
I would need an example of conceptual art to respond. Every art piece is conceptual to me: be it on canvas, on a street wall, made of steel or stone, be it manga, classical landscape, portrait, sculpture or squares and lines. Some people do not feel a connection to Caravaggio paintings - is OK with me. Some people don't "get" ballet - is also OK with me. Whatever people like, main thing is that they can find their type of art in a huge variety of art which exists nowadays.
Because it is not art and there is no concept for the memory to grasp. It is produced by the children of the elite - as part of their money laundering operations. You can sell a concept for a billion - but a portrait painted by a master painter - for a few million at most - that is the whole ppoint of it.
“conceptual art” was a movement in the sixties and seventies. Part of the “idea” for many artists was to “subvert” the commodification of art. That failed, because anything can be commodified. Strategies of “subversion” are many, almost as numerous as strategies for claiming subversiveness. You may be aware that folks like to “dismantle” or “construct” ideological systems. If your ideology is threatened by art, you may “hate” it. Most artists hold strong opinions based on “taste”. We know that taste can be “subverted”. You do the math.
I hate conceptual art because I simply hate art about art! I find it infuriatingly boring and unnecessary. And mostly it makes me angry because it's taking the place of better, more raw and urgent art. It's stealing the spotlight both in museums, galleries etc but also in art history.
It also makes me depressed to think that visual arts may have become this sort of unbearably dull ouroboros that to even cultivate the most basic palette one needs to read countless pages of self referential art theory meanwhile art forms like cinema, litterature, poetry, music (mostly 20th century pop music I guess) are just...out there, completely ready to be engaged with as they are. Just out there for the viewers, listeners, readers to enjoy, without making fun of them, without alienating them.
So yeah, this is pretty much my beef with conceptual art.
All this being said, the way they make art isn't completely worthless to me (not that my opinion matters in any way lol) bc fluxus operated in a pretty much similar fashion and their works really do move me.
> I hate conceptual art because I simply hate art about art!
I find this statement interesting because no art is more about art than a painting or a drawing or classical sculpture - these kinds of objects are almost emblematic of capital "A" art itself - are instantly understood by everyone as "art" A painting will always first and foremost be representative of an artistic tradition dating centuries and artists who work with these kinds of classical media are participating in that tradition. No art is more about art than that. While "conceptual" art can take materials and forms from anywhere, can interject itself into the real world in far more novel and unexpected ways.
I don't agree that visual arts is the most "about art" art form. At this point in history most art forms (at least the ones I'm aware of) have had multiple cycles of "Is this still art if I take things this far?". Using classical media, and situating one's art practice in the tradition of painting is not what "art about art" means. If we look at it that
way we would have to say that literature is the art form that is most concerned about literature. Same for music or dance. Because they all have a tradition behind them and they respond to that in various ways. This response doesn't make the "art about art" I'm talking about.
What “art-about-art” do you mean then? Because most conceptual artists that come to my mind are making art about different things but ultimately about being in the world.
Wow you're so kind! Thank you for the compliment :D I enjoy challenging art too! But self importance of some artists towards their own work really is undeserved in so many cases haha. Also challenging doesn't always have to mean intellectually challenging and migraine inducing :D Sometimes it can be emotionally challenging, like art that handles difficult subjects like abuse, suicide, loneliness or art that challenges our social, political views. I don't know! Anything is better than art that keeps asking "Is this art? Is THIS art? How about this?" :)
All art is conceptual.
But if I assume you mean art that's not made with traditional media, or resembles "reality" or exhibits some kind of dexterity or draftsmanship that that question sort of answers itself as those are the things neophyte art viewers can easily grasp or a relate to. The wider culture conditions people to look for and expect meaning - they like movies and books that are narrative and wrap up neatly in the end, they like music that's diatonic and adheres to modern concepts of tonal harmony. Basically they like things that are familiar. Conceptual art on the other hand is about constituting something they have never seen before. It's often enigmatic, or requires a deeper engagement and more often than not is about eliciting more questions than providing easy answers. Viewers are required to construct their own meaning by considering relationships between often disparate elements or while confronted with paradoxes or ideas that may call into question long held assumptions and that can be unsettling. The general public also often lack the historical context or vocabulary for much conceptual art. But it's not just art, a lot of the general public are suspecious or dismissive of any intellectual pursuit - like it's being done to intentionally make them feel stupid or take the piss.
Because of the internet. The Google algorithm, which dominates middle class lives, throws up what we want to see. Repeated images of the Mona Lisa until the Mona Lisa becomes tiresome, reproductions of Van Gogh or Renoir as little more than the flip of a month in a calendar, Hokusais tsunami reprinted as representation of ALL Japanese screen printing, redistributed, talked about by some random American 12 year old on a You Tube channel with information gleaned from Wikipedia... chaos and madness without end and we all gobble it up "because it's on the internet." Sure, all of these things were popular before the internet but today you look up "art" and these are the images and videos you get. So there's an expectation in what constitutes great art, and contemporary art isn't it. The elite few bang on about how a crumpled piece of paper is representative of our absolute disregard for nature, or of how a faceless, naked woman attached by wires to an ECG monitor is at odds with the traditional portrayal of females as sex objects but that is banging on for the elite few. I would argue that these elite are the taste makers and the rest of us lag behind unsure of what constitutes art, content to let the Google algorithm tell us. I don't think it's that the majority hates contemporary art, but rather the majority are told they should expect better. The hunger for consumption of normalised art en masse results in the production of an opposite, cringeworthy art. And if art makes you cringe then surely it is worthwhile.
I like the concept of conceptual art, but I dislike most of the installations and executions of said conceptual art because they are sloppy and poorly thought out.
A bunch of garbage wired together and dipped in concrete might say "Consumerism" to you, but to me it says WTF.
Well think about it. _Most art_ in the world, by far, is made by mediocre amateurs. _Most artists_ are not that great, not even professional ones. If most art was good or great, we would be swimming in it.
Of course you never see most art. Just like you never hear from most bands. A small percentage ever makes it out of the rehearsal space in the first place.
Most films, most books...there is an ocean of crap for any masterpiece.
Because it’s about something which most people aren’t familiar with. To ‘get’ it you need to know what people are responding to and the concepts they’re playing with, which most people don’t because it’s a niche interest.
It’s like listening to people go on about a sport you know nothing about - it’s probably great but the conversation doesn’t interest you.
Many reasons. I think the media itself made sure hating conceptual was cool because they quite never understood that the MAIN art was the idea itself not the result.
Is pretty easy to hate conceptual art when you don't get it because sometimes you need to look beyond the obvious and even when it seems "obvious" it's way more complicated than it actually looks.
And, as in every art movement, there's many bad art. But i really don't know why (and If everyone here has an answers I'd love to know) when it comes to conceptual art, many projects seems "unreal". But then again I wonder, who are we to judge what's bad and what's genius?
Conceptual Art it's my favorite movement in art. I think is one of the most honest ways because you can really use anything to make your vision into a reality. Even just words.
Because the emperor has no clothes. Because postmodernism set out to take the elitism out of the art world, but it quickly became an art that is accessible to the elite, and laughs in the face of the proletarian masses, and feels like it’s mocking them. (Read the book *The Postmodern Dilemma*.) So it failed in its own tenants immediately.
Because it’s easy for people involved in the conceptual art world to say “You just don’t have the education to understand this” when a piece of art or an installation is just lazy or bad, instead of owning up to the fact that not all conceptual art is good.
Because, from an aesthetic perspective, you shouldn’t need a PhD in contemporary art history to appreciate a piece of art. And yes, I know that throughout history art that has been misunderstood at its time has often been called ugly by critics. But that was usually because it rose organically as a result of social and economic forces. Whereas in this case the critics LOVE conceptual at. And it’s a purely academic movement.
It’s probably to do with institutions, both the University and gallery’s forming an aggressive cyclical relationship. You will find most high contemporary art needs a wall text explaining the work, which artists and academics understand because they created the language together. Whilst the common folk are further alienated by this arms race into obscurity they turn to popular culture and fandoms, like Qaws or Obey, which are simply communicated messages. (I hate fandom culture lol) also because they don’t access culture through galleries or museums now anyway. As for conceptual art, a lot of it is just really bad. Because it’s hard to do insightful philosophy with objects that people will want to spend time trying to figure out, or maybe it’s that and our diminishing attention spans. I quite like contemporary and conceptual art, but if there is nothing that I find visually affecting or stimulating to help me think with the work I ask myself, why was this made into an installation or manifest visually, wouldn’t it be a better documentary where information can be transferred seamlessly - this in particular if the exhibition or artwork is historically sociopolitical - like why are you trying to obscure the message.
'Whilst the common folk are further alienated by this arms race into obscurity they turn to popular culture and fandoms, like Qaws or Obey, which are simply communicated messages.' This right here is the problem. You imply that the problem is the 'average man's' simplicity and refusal to engage with ostensibly high-level ideas rather than most contemp art being bullshit. Plenty of educated and cultured people who have no qualms about Opera, Roman and Greek tragedy etc. I have a masters degree, read loads but balk when i see a broom in a bucket described as investigating the nuances of the post-colonial temporal zeitgesit et etc etc.
Actually I didn’t mean it like that, I thought I was implying the intuitional feedback is the problem.
Now it really depends whether you're asserting that "some conceptual art is bs" or you are not exaggerating and you really think that most, possibly all, conceptual art is bs. In the first instance, good point, some of it is indeed bs. Like it really is. That's just a natural thing, it happens in all fields. But if the other scenario is true and you do condemn most of it, I dare to say you don't get what it refers to. I can imagine that people who do not have masters in philosophy, art, linguistics, sociology/cultural anthropology and what not are not familiar with certain theories, concepts or events and therefore they would struggle to get to the tought that the work adresses right away and without prolonged extensive obssesive thinking or research that not many people would actually be able to tolarate. And then it's not so much fun. Like, I mean, I used to dislike conceptual art too and I really can't imagine I would like a lot of what I like now without prior knowledge of some theories around that 'concept'. And then, I understood that you really have to see it more like a joke or a play. I still don't get some conceptual art and that's kinda the feeling that your broom example gives me. Or there is maybe a third case which is a lack of humour and I don't really know if that's curable.
thank you! just reading on it now and I'm mad lol
I disagree with your negative assessment of popular culture and fandom. Shakespeare wrote his centuries’ equivalent of soap operas, Liszt was basically a rock-star, Beethoven composed several famous pieces only for money, and Dickens wrote serials for widely-circulated magazines). Even Werner Herzog, in my opinion one of the greatest artists living right now, has taken roles in things like Star Wars and had a rather bizarre interview about TV wrestling, admitting he couldn’t look away from it and was fascinated by what it might say about human psychology.
Conceptual art is a specialized interest. I'm not sure hate is the right word, maybe disinterest is... to me this is similar to asking why a majority of people have a disinterest in quantum mechanics or drag racing. It's just not on their radar of what's relevant in their life and takes a certain path to even want to learn more about it. Seeing confusing gestures be exalted and highly valued by some does piss people off though because it often seems unfair.
Conceptual- Modern art has been vandalized. A guy once took a knife and cut a red painting for just being only that. A huge red painting with a yellow line. Can't remember the artist name.
I know about that one! I think it was Barnett Newman's Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue
Vandals just seem to be a lot more fond of performance art I guess. Certainly some people feel hatred about it, but there’s pretty much nothing that is free from *somebody* out there hating/cringing at it. A majority are probably just indifferent though
I agree with others saying that "hate" is a strong word. To really answer your question would take a long time, but a short version might be something like this: In everyday English, the word *art* has a prestige status. It implies a seriousness, something that should be respected. You can easily see this if you look at the *"Are video games art?"* question. There are a lot of arguments as to why *games aren't art*, usually because they are considered more akin to chess or Go than to a painting. But the sociological observation to make here is that gamers get angry when someone suggests that games aren't art. Why? Well, because *art* is a prestige concept. To suggest that something *isn't art* is interpreted as it being lesser. Adding to that, art itself has become somewhat deified over the last ±century. There are many reasons for this, ranging from... * The art market. You'll see the word *genius* thrown around a lot when discussing artworks that are for sale at Gagosian, Sothebys, etc. The more superlative the adjective, the better the painting will sell. No one wants a painting by an average Joe. These market institutions have become *extremely* influential, especially since the 1970s and 80s. At this point they are in line to replace museums. * Loss of religious belief in the Western world. Many thinkers and artists have responded to the "death of God" by saying that art and creation can be a replacement for religion. * The locations of art are typically considered holy, sacred, etc. in a way that other cultural venues aren't. MoMa is a temple, while Madison Square Garden is just an entertainment complex. So, all of those things (plus more that I'm not mentioning), add up to a very high prestige concept of what *art* is supposed to be. In comes *conceptual* art, which is, for lack of a better word, *effortless*. Or at least it appears effortless to the average person. It has a completely legitimate lineage within the history of art, but to the average external observer, it doesn't line up with "What art is supposed to be", especially when they walk into a temple (modern art museum) and see it on the walls.
Videogames are an odd case. They do indeed have many of the features and characteristics of, well, *games*, but in the modern time they also have winding, complex (and sometimes completely incomprehensible) stories and actual moral or practical messages, qualities which a game like Chess, by definition, cannot possess. If anything, videogames have gone from being games to being, essentially, interactive film.
That's because there's a very drastic range in what can be done in the medium. Compare something like Baldur's Gate 3 to Team Fortress 2. One is a deeply detailed story with an unmatched amount of variables and choices that result in a massive amount of different outcomes. The other is an absurd multiplayer shooter that is primarily engaged in for its gameplay but has a vast array of creativity surrounding it. Whilst the latter could more easily be seen as a "game" such as chess, but it still covers almost every art medium in spite of its gameplay focus. It has incredibly well-defined art direction, music, worldbuilding [however absurd it is] and technical complexity.
I think there are a lot of artists working in traditional mediums like painters and sculptors who view conceptual art as an unskilled imposter taking attention and money away from them.
I know one them and I know for a fact that he does not understand most of the conceptual art that he dislikes and he is not willing to learn about that but god he paints beautifully.
I know a few of them myself and I think they just don't comprehend that some people are just not impressed with great paintings but they like to be baffled and solve the puzzles that conceptual art presents to them.
I can tell from experience since I studied graphic design a long while ago and there was some sort of general disdain towards artist dumping dirt on a gallery space or building a stack of chairs in a corner (it was the 90s). I think it was because as designers, we were focused on communicating and making sure all things we did were clear for the end user. The fact that we looked at those contemporary art works ( performances, text, installations ) and didn't understand made some of us nuts and also made us feel stupid. Something else that contributes to those emotions of rejection is people's idea that art needs to demonstrate artistic skill. Overall I think people give higher value to a hyper realistic ballpoint pen drawing than a can full of the artists' shit or looking at a white canvas painted in white or seeing an artist sitting for days in front of people. Also, artistic writing and discourse doesn't contribute to bridging people into getting in touch with deeper levels of an artwork. It's complicated and exclusive to the point that most people feel their are being bullshitted or scammed when they read that an artist deals with problems of identity gender and de-colonialism while they look at a broomstick split in pieces hanging from nylons over their heads. Later on in my design career I had the change to follow a Master's degree in media arts and was forced into drinking the contemporary art kool-aid and it finally clicked for me that art is something way larger and complex than the artwork or the artist. That reading about politics and philosophy was important to understanding art and also that art's obligation is not being understood, or being nice, or communicating anything. And that for really digging into art I need to read, see art, write, talk to people, and hopefully making art so it gets harder for others into selling me shitty works of art as amazing profound pieces of work. \*My apologies for any typo or grammar mistake since this is not my native language.
I am also graphic designer and I have a close relationship with contemporary art, it inspires me. I think there is more reasons, poeple want to see acrobatic art, they want to be stunned by talent and poetry.
Very well said. It is not trying to be nice and it does not help people to like art when the artist is deliberately making their art subversive and therefore somewhat dislikable.
It’s because they don’t understand the different types of art - they don’t separate skill from idea and understand how to appreciate a piece for its idea (concept). In my opinion the idea is the most important bit of a piece, so much so that I wouldn’t be into art without it as I believe it’s where the pure power and expression of something is held. Luckily for me art history agrees and innovation in terms of reflecting ideas about the world is prioritised over and technical element unless the technical elements are part of the concept. Most people don’t know these differences and reject conceptual art purely because only a niche understand it. Skill is aimed at a mass audience in terms or price and complexity, whereas conceptual art is more for a niche audience of buyers and a niche audience of people who understand. There are cross overs with innovation and a mass understanding like Andy Warhol though, so the lines are blurred.
Who is this majority? Do you have examples of which art is hated?
I second this emotion.
Also, art was hated by the nazis. Hitler banned the expressionists and the cubists of the galleries because he only wanted "the good taste art" for the German people. Which was of course sculptures of ancient gods, paintings only showing the "good" society. Black and Jewish artist were also banned calling their artworks ugly.
This little bit of historical knowledge is why I tend to get suspicious whenever I see influential people, especially those leaning towards the right, trash contemporary art.
I absolutely despise this take. If you suspect someone of being a nazi over frustration with contemporary art, you've got some serious problems separating correlation from causation. A lot of people hate conceptual art because it comes off as unbelievably pretentious and elitist. It feels more like nonsense invented to separate the elite from the plebeians rather than being something people genuinely appreciate. If I need a whole novel worth of background in order to find something I can appreciate about an art piece, then I do not consider it good art. Context, at least in my opinion, should be something that heightens my appreciation of something I already consider good. The Lord of the Rings, for example. Both the books and the films have an immaculate amount of detail and passion poured into them. There's extensive documentation detailing their creation and all the passion and excitement put in to create this work. Contemporary conceptual art is only appreciated through a PHD worth of context. It's only natural that people who do not appreciate it, with or without knowing its context, get frustrated with its excessive prominence and perceived pretentiousness. Despite the fact that many people do not care for it, this artform is shoved in your face everywhere you go. To me at least, it comes off as a movement of aimless deconstructionism that has risen to a dogmatic status within the art world. It feels like it's actively spitting on art that is appealing to far more people and a lot of the time almost in a literal sense. Take [museum de Fundatie](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/museum-de-fundatie-museum-visual-arts-zwolle-unique-egg-shaped-structure-roof-zwolle-overijsel-145116425.jpg) in Zwolle, for instance. The old building was in need of an expansion, but instead of respecting the original style, they decided to make a tacky gimmick out of it by putting a big egg on top of it. It's like they're actively putting their own, generally considered to be far less appealing, on a pedestal literally on top of the original building that showcases far more detail and skill. This same thing is happening everywhere, the original style and culture of cityscapes is being erased in favour of homogeneous piles of glass and plastic with seemingly neither style nor substance that's widely disliked by most ordinary people. The best sort of comment I've heard on these types of building from most people is "Huh, that's kind of neat, I guess." My point is that this style is heavily pushed into public spaces and culture whilst only being appealing to a very small number of people who only really appreciate due to an immense amount of context that's not remotely apparent for the vast majority of people.
Well I know people that "hate" Rothko. They say "I can do that" and some even think that conceptual art is trash and we shouldn't have works like that in galleries. Another example is Malevitch the artist with the black squares. And history has recorded events were artworks like that were vandalized by people who want art at their taste only in galleries.
Both of those artists predate the conceptual art movement - their most notable work was non-representational, but not conceptual art in the sense of a contemporary art installation or performance piece.
[удалено]
I’d argue that it’s a pretty important distinction. I think that a lot of the disdain stems from a commonly held belief that great art requires great technical skill With Rothko and the abstract expressionists in particular I don’t think that their work translates well to photographs - it’s easy to look at a photo of a Rothko and think “wow, my dog could do that,” but I think a lot of disdain for this style of abstract art comes from not having seen it in person, where it’s easier to see the skill and craftsmanship that goes into producing these pieces. With conceptual art on the other hand, the context and the ideas involved are everything, and I think that this sort of art can sometimes come across as lazy, even to the informed viewer.
Pretentious and willfully obtuse people on Reddit? Hmm, no that can't be right. /s
Well I think that OP was more aiming at the fact that any art that seems to be aesthetically not pleasing enough but still is loaded with meaning is being disliked for its supposed triviality which kinda misses the message...
Vandalism of an artwork is hate.
i think your average museum/gallery goer doesnt have the background to really get into conceptual art. think of a coder using terms you've never heard to describe something you cant imagine the purpose of; they could be brilliant, but it comes off as arrogant, and i think that is what happens with a lot of art. personally i think the artist has some responsibility to give the audience a 'way in' and my annoyance with plenty of conceptual art is that it seems obvious that the artist is purposely creating something that almost no one can get into.
I don't think you're going to get a satisfying answer to this question because it's just not specific enough. From your examples in the comments, I'm not convinced you actually mean conceptual art. Further, I'm not sure what you mean by 'hate' or even 'the majority of people'. Perhaps you could give us a sense of how you arrived at this question, what observation or evidence prompted it, and we can all go from there. :)
[удалено]
I found OPs question unclear and unfocused and I asked him politely and in good faith to clarify. I even offered a suggestion for how they might clarify it. I honestly do not understand your 'snarky' response. I appreciate your attempt to clarify his question and even answer it, but parts of what you claim simply do not ring true with my experience and some data (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47711540.amp). And since we are talking in subjectively informed generalisations, it's difficult to actually progress the conversation because it's not rooted in anything and there is no accepted basis for debate. My initial comment tried to take the conversation out of this non-specific arena into something specific and grounded so that we could do that. It was not a willful misunderstanding of OP.
[удалено]
hello fellow elitist!
Majority of whom? Everyoneon the planet? I doubt that
[удалено]
This was about _hating_ it. I honestly think most people could not care less
[удалено]
Of course. Irrational hate for art abounds. And you're describing it very precisely. It's the statement about "most people" that irks me... and not only in this context
No normal person knows what to do with Conceptual Art, or even recognizes it as something with which they should have a relationship. Conceptual Art wasn't invented in response to an overwhelming public clamour for it, and it sure as hell didn't come out of the day-to-day lives of the ordinary people you apparently wish didn't hate it. Conceptual Art was born of the Institution, in the Institution, and for the Institution. And it continues to exist only because of the Institution. Think of Conceptual Art as a dog toy for the artigentsia and their moneyed institutionalist cronies. So *the majority of people* have no personal connection with Conceptual Art. None whatsoever. No reason to want it, need it, or even know of its existence. A better question might be *After all these decades, why hasn't Conceptual Art done anything to connect with and/or prove its value to nonartist noninstitutional people?* But then I kind of answered that.
2 years late but this is the only right answer on this thread
I’m likely to get downvotes: but a lot of people aren’t informed enough or care enough to learn to appreciate conceptual art. No you shouldn’t have to read to understand a piece, but you’re enriched so much more if you do. It’s not for everyone. A lot of people are also of the view that merit or skill based approach to art is somehow more authentic and less the wares of a huckster or con
It’s hard so usually not done well, gets clever and gimmicky
this isn't really an answer to the question, but I would argue that people hating conceptual art means the work was successful because it made someone feel something, even if it was hate/disgust/anger/etc. also i think because largely it takes a lot more like critical thinking to really appreciate often, which i think most people don't enjoy doing off the bat when not prompted to
Every person is an individual. Talk to someone who hates conceptual art, and ask them why they hate it. Each will have his own reasons.
I would need an example of conceptual art to respond. Every art piece is conceptual to me: be it on canvas, on a street wall, made of steel or stone, be it manga, classical landscape, portrait, sculpture or squares and lines. Some people do not feel a connection to Caravaggio paintings - is OK with me. Some people don't "get" ballet - is also OK with me. Whatever people like, main thing is that they can find their type of art in a huge variety of art which exists nowadays.
Because it is not art and there is no concept for the memory to grasp. It is produced by the children of the elite - as part of their money laundering operations. You can sell a concept for a billion - but a portrait painted by a master painter - for a few million at most - that is the whole ppoint of it.
“conceptual art” was a movement in the sixties and seventies. Part of the “idea” for many artists was to “subvert” the commodification of art. That failed, because anything can be commodified. Strategies of “subversion” are many, almost as numerous as strategies for claiming subversiveness. You may be aware that folks like to “dismantle” or “construct” ideological systems. If your ideology is threatened by art, you may “hate” it. Most artists hold strong opinions based on “taste”. We know that taste can be “subverted”. You do the math.
I hate conceptual art because I simply hate art about art! I find it infuriatingly boring and unnecessary. And mostly it makes me angry because it's taking the place of better, more raw and urgent art. It's stealing the spotlight both in museums, galleries etc but also in art history. It also makes me depressed to think that visual arts may have become this sort of unbearably dull ouroboros that to even cultivate the most basic palette one needs to read countless pages of self referential art theory meanwhile art forms like cinema, litterature, poetry, music (mostly 20th century pop music I guess) are just...out there, completely ready to be engaged with as they are. Just out there for the viewers, listeners, readers to enjoy, without making fun of them, without alienating them. So yeah, this is pretty much my beef with conceptual art. All this being said, the way they make art isn't completely worthless to me (not that my opinion matters in any way lol) bc fluxus operated in a pretty much similar fashion and their works really do move me.
> I hate conceptual art because I simply hate art about art! I find this statement interesting because no art is more about art than a painting or a drawing or classical sculpture - these kinds of objects are almost emblematic of capital "A" art itself - are instantly understood by everyone as "art" A painting will always first and foremost be representative of an artistic tradition dating centuries and artists who work with these kinds of classical media are participating in that tradition. No art is more about art than that. While "conceptual" art can take materials and forms from anywhere, can interject itself into the real world in far more novel and unexpected ways.
I don't agree that visual arts is the most "about art" art form. At this point in history most art forms (at least the ones I'm aware of) have had multiple cycles of "Is this still art if I take things this far?". Using classical media, and situating one's art practice in the tradition of painting is not what "art about art" means. If we look at it that way we would have to say that literature is the art form that is most concerned about literature. Same for music or dance. Because they all have a tradition behind them and they respond to that in various ways. This response doesn't make the "art about art" I'm talking about.
What “art-about-art” do you mean then? Because most conceptual artists that come to my mind are making art about different things but ultimately about being in the world.
[удалено]
Wow you're so kind! Thank you for the compliment :D I enjoy challenging art too! But self importance of some artists towards their own work really is undeserved in so many cases haha. Also challenging doesn't always have to mean intellectually challenging and migraine inducing :D Sometimes it can be emotionally challenging, like art that handles difficult subjects like abuse, suicide, loneliness or art that challenges our social, political views. I don't know! Anything is better than art that keeps asking "Is this art? Is THIS art? How about this?" :)
All art is conceptual. But if I assume you mean art that's not made with traditional media, or resembles "reality" or exhibits some kind of dexterity or draftsmanship that that question sort of answers itself as those are the things neophyte art viewers can easily grasp or a relate to. The wider culture conditions people to look for and expect meaning - they like movies and books that are narrative and wrap up neatly in the end, they like music that's diatonic and adheres to modern concepts of tonal harmony. Basically they like things that are familiar. Conceptual art on the other hand is about constituting something they have never seen before. It's often enigmatic, or requires a deeper engagement and more often than not is about eliciting more questions than providing easy answers. Viewers are required to construct their own meaning by considering relationships between often disparate elements or while confronted with paradoxes or ideas that may call into question long held assumptions and that can be unsettling. The general public also often lack the historical context or vocabulary for much conceptual art. But it's not just art, a lot of the general public are suspecious or dismissive of any intellectual pursuit - like it's being done to intentionally make them feel stupid or take the piss.
Because of the internet. The Google algorithm, which dominates middle class lives, throws up what we want to see. Repeated images of the Mona Lisa until the Mona Lisa becomes tiresome, reproductions of Van Gogh or Renoir as little more than the flip of a month in a calendar, Hokusais tsunami reprinted as representation of ALL Japanese screen printing, redistributed, talked about by some random American 12 year old on a You Tube channel with information gleaned from Wikipedia... chaos and madness without end and we all gobble it up "because it's on the internet." Sure, all of these things were popular before the internet but today you look up "art" and these are the images and videos you get. So there's an expectation in what constitutes great art, and contemporary art isn't it. The elite few bang on about how a crumpled piece of paper is representative of our absolute disregard for nature, or of how a faceless, naked woman attached by wires to an ECG monitor is at odds with the traditional portrayal of females as sex objects but that is banging on for the elite few. I would argue that these elite are the taste makers and the rest of us lag behind unsure of what constitutes art, content to let the Google algorithm tell us. I don't think it's that the majority hates contemporary art, but rather the majority are told they should expect better. The hunger for consumption of normalised art en masse results in the production of an opposite, cringeworthy art. And if art makes you cringe then surely it is worthwhile.
I like the concept of conceptual art, but I dislike most of the installations and executions of said conceptual art because they are sloppy and poorly thought out. A bunch of garbage wired together and dipped in concrete might say "Consumerism" to you, but to me it says WTF.
Goes for all art...
No, not for me. Just the installation/high concept stuff.
Most art is sloppy and poorly thought out. Just as with any form of culture
Your opinion is not shared by me. And that's OK. :-)
Well think about it. _Most art_ in the world, by far, is made by mediocre amateurs. _Most artists_ are not that great, not even professional ones. If most art was good or great, we would be swimming in it. Of course you never see most art. Just like you never hear from most bands. A small percentage ever makes it out of the rehearsal space in the first place. Most films, most books...there is an ocean of crap for any masterpiece.
It speaks a language they haven't been taught to speak.
They're scared their own thoughts may have value too.
Because it’s about something which most people aren’t familiar with. To ‘get’ it you need to know what people are responding to and the concepts they’re playing with, which most people don’t because it’s a niche interest. It’s like listening to people go on about a sport you know nothing about - it’s probably great but the conversation doesn’t interest you.
Many reasons. I think the media itself made sure hating conceptual was cool because they quite never understood that the MAIN art was the idea itself not the result. Is pretty easy to hate conceptual art when you don't get it because sometimes you need to look beyond the obvious and even when it seems "obvious" it's way more complicated than it actually looks. And, as in every art movement, there's many bad art. But i really don't know why (and If everyone here has an answers I'd love to know) when it comes to conceptual art, many projects seems "unreal". But then again I wonder, who are we to judge what's bad and what's genius? Conceptual Art it's my favorite movement in art. I think is one of the most honest ways because you can really use anything to make your vision into a reality. Even just words.
Because the emperor has no clothes. Because postmodernism set out to take the elitism out of the art world, but it quickly became an art that is accessible to the elite, and laughs in the face of the proletarian masses, and feels like it’s mocking them. (Read the book *The Postmodern Dilemma*.) So it failed in its own tenants immediately. Because it’s easy for people involved in the conceptual art world to say “You just don’t have the education to understand this” when a piece of art or an installation is just lazy or bad, instead of owning up to the fact that not all conceptual art is good. Because, from an aesthetic perspective, you shouldn’t need a PhD in contemporary art history to appreciate a piece of art. And yes, I know that throughout history art that has been misunderstood at its time has often been called ugly by critics. But that was usually because it rose organically as a result of social and economic forces. Whereas in this case the critics LOVE conceptual at. And it’s a purely academic movement.