When I was a senior in high school, I grew a specific fascination with conceptual art. One of my art teachers at the time, Mr. Murphy, corrected me when I was discussing with him about conceptual art. He stated: “All art is conceptual. There is no such thing as conceptual art”. At the time, I believed him because I was young. However, today as a critical writer with experience, I strongly disagree with such a notion. There is clearly a difference between conceptual art and non-conceptual art. Conceptual art is not meant to be directly expressive but rather formed to convey a specific idea or several concepts simultaneously. The idea may have a narrative, but a narrative alone is not conceptual. History painting has a narrative and such a genre is as far away from conceptual art as possible.
So, what is the purpose of conceptual art? Let’s start with an example of my own art. I’m a photographer, but I’m also a photographic assemblage artist. My photographs of aquatic life by themselves are not conceptual because they are a documentary. However, I do create conceptual still lifes which convey a specific idea about vanity and alluring power through combining crushed glass, satin fabric, colored liquid, and satin fabric. This mythological display creates a distinct scenario more than a direct narrative, hence being conceptual art. Let’s talk again about the documentary photography of aquatic life. When I combine my unedited photography into a montage on Photoshop, they are still not conceptual, because they are simply a collage of documentary. However, when I add iron texts to the photographic assemblage which relates to the combination of the images, voilà, conceptual art becomes created. For example, in photography, when an artist uses props, set design, and actors to convey a specific idea or uses integrative techniques such as combining assemblage or texts rather than a direct narrative, the photos becomes conceptual.
Performance art is inherently conceptual in pure form because the genre is based on expressing body language, sound, engagement, and bodily actions to communicate a call to action, drawing us towards a plan, a grand design based on specific purpose. Most forms of installation art are basically a sculpture with a concept. Not all installations are conceptual but a majority of them are. Depending on the context and circumstances, an installation can either be totally conceptual or completely design-based and expressive. Minimalism can be conceptual if the forms are specifically guided towards a specific purpose far beyond design principles, but a vast majority of minimalism is based on breaking down visual elements into pure form for art’s sake rather driving towards any grand plan.
You can almost break down conceptual art into a science, unlike other artforms. In most circumstances, we can very clearly state if a work of art is conceptual by studying the intended as well as unintended purposes of the structure and communicative elements of the artwork. A large part of what makes a work of art conceptual is configuration. A display depicting an object, place, or person does not make a work conceptual, no matter how many ways the artist tries to alter the perspective of the portrayal. However, when the artist deconstructs or reorganizes the subject and restructures the purpose and meaning of the motif or element, the artwork can become conceptual if there is a specific idea and plan behind such behavior. Another way you can find out if a body of works are conceptual would be to write about them. If you write an essay about an artist and find yourself writing more about design elements, process, and expressive qualities, the artist and art is not conceptual. However, if the art leads the writer towards explaining reinterpreting preconceived notions or symbolizing an idea which leads to a grander narrative, then the art is probably conceptual, in most cases.
In a way, many people may find conceptual art to be threatening and imposing. The world very much operates on structure and order while conceptual art in essence disrupts the flow of continuity in the arrangement of systems. Most people would find the idea of having their pre-conceived notions or beliefs questioned to be absurd or even intrusive. Conceptual art can be chaotic and disturbing but also can be enlightening to potentially have the viewer change their mind about how they previously viewed an idea, object, place, time, subject, person, or narrative.
A conceptual photographer such as Van O (Ivan Isaev) exemplifies methods of conveying ideas in photography. Van O creates conceptual set designs, hand-made props, costumes, and presents theatrical scenes with actors engaged in ironic performative actions. A recurring theme often contained within his work is reconstructing narratives from fairy tales and mythology to be reenacted into a contemporary context to be ironic, humorous, and absurd. In other words, he does not only capture what he sees in a documentary manner but reenacts his personal imagination to be communicative beyond literal depictions. To have a deeper purpose beyond the limitations of reality and familiar contexts.
When the artist rearranges systems and structures, we think deeper upon the purpose of identity and our place in society as well as our relationships to the ‘other’, whether being object, place, time, or person(s). The philosophical interpretation which derives from the ideas from conceptual art has the viewer reevaluate the very basis of their mind, in essence, leading to engage in a catharsis of deeper consciousness and understanding.