I love artistic concepts. Sometimes they are really simple, other times incredible in their intricacies.
Take the abstract artist Mark Rothko, who from a simple concept developed a huge body of work. After modernism took off in the visual arts world, many artists were attempting to remove one of the dimensions, depth, from their artwork. Rothko realised that no matter how much they tried, the paint itself forms a dimension on the canvas. So he decided to use watercolours to dye the canvas itself.
As a concept? Brilliant. In practise? I’ll let a piece of his work tell the story:
Before I go on, I just need to say that I really like Rothko’s artwork. His work can be amazingly beautiful in the simplicity and the limited colour palette used. However, if you were asked to describe the above image, how would you?
You’d say it looks like a couple of bands of colour.
Herein lays a problem: what’s more important, the concept or the art? Certainly, the concept can exist prior to the artwork, but can the resulting work ever be separated from the concept, once the concept is known?
Despite Rothko’s huge fame and popularity, a huge portion of people do not like his artwork. That may have something to do with the concept behind it not being as widely known as the art itself.
Once the concept behind these “bands of colours” is known, I bet everyone finds the artwork more interesting than they found it before.
But can a piece of art be less interesting than its concept? This seems to be a very fundamental question, that turns out to be very difficult to answer. To see a work of art without knowing the concept behind it could result in the viewer simply not liking it, or feeling indifferent. Seeing a work of art and knowing the concept behind it instantly makes the artwork more interesting, but not necessarily better for it.
From an amazingly interesting concept, a dull and boring piece of artwork could result. But, of course, anyone who knows the concept could no longer be objective about it, and in most cases would argue the merits of the work, explaining the concept, and thus proving that a piece of art is at least as interesting as its concept.
Only those who don’t know the concept can be objective about the quality of the artwork. But doesn’t a piece of conceptual art need the concept told in order for its merits to be judged?
I see a pattern developing here.
Personally, if I knew and liked the concept of a piece of work, I would buy it over some flashy aesthetically pleasing piece I didn’t know/like the concept of. Every piece of art is a vision by the artist, thats the point of art, to share a vision. I guess its like judging a book by its cover. Picking the ones with the pretty “covers”, not worrying about the “story” inside. Basically, it is up to the artist to decide whether they want their concept behind the work to be known or not. When I paint things, and if people ask “What the hell is this about?” I generally don’t tell. I would rather people wonder about what it is, rather than being told. To me art is individualistic interpretation of something another individual has created. But I guess sometimes, like with Rothko’s work, a small blurb would probably help people appreciate it more. Each to their own :) I also think art “critics” are full of crap, because how can you judge someone elses vision?
Valid points you make. And I do like the piece. However, in this case I posit that he didn’t have to sacrifice art for the concept. It seems to me that his art displays some contempt for those who use the watercolour medium to create wonderful works. It’s simplistic, and somewhat droll, and could have been much more. See how depth is eliminated with many of the artists of the abstract movement, while still maintaining some semblance of complexity in the form.
Now, the long-exposire glowstick image you used for the header… That’s awesome. If only there was a deep concept behind it.