Inconceivable Conceptual Art

Dear art lovers, I started to write about conceptual art upon the display of empty frames by an artist. The reason why I talk about empty frames is their setting a good example for what cannot be conceptual art.

In any concept, it is an incident that can happen with other artists as exhibiting the same object by reproducing it in the same form of idea. Such an happening was seen even with the famous artist Marcel Duchamp, who is the source of inspiration for the conceptual art. You can read about it in the below link.

After Duchamp’s original work named ‘Fountain’ (an urinal, indeed) exhibited in Pasadena Art Museum, many galleries and museums displayed great interest and therefore Duchamp allowed the production of copies of the original work. In 1964,  Gallery Schwarz in Milan made eight copies of ‘Fountain’ from photographs of the original work, and those were signed by Duchamp himself.[1]

Before starting my commentary, let me state that Duchamp exhibited his first ‘Fountain’ in 1917, and in 1964 in some way he was persuaded to allow the production of copies of ‘Fountain’, and he signed those! If he thought that wasn’t wrong, within forty years he would have signed up so many ‘Fountain’s that would be enough for a city. But there is no such a happening.

Inconceivable  Conceptual Art

                As for my comments on the event, there are two components within this action that fit my term ‘unconceived conceptual art’. First; the idea of making the reproduced ‘Fountain’s (urinals) to be identical to the one exhibited in 1917. However, in conceptual art the exhibited object has no importance and value. Indeed, the concept or the expression attributed to or the thought represented by the object is important. Even you can install and display the same concept in dozens of various ready-made objects. So, the expression in Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ (urinal) covers all types of urinals produced. It doesn’t have to be identical to the first one. The second; there is no concern of art behind multiple reproductions of Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ (urinal). This is very clear. Those are commercial items produced on demand.                Let’s correct a mistake here: making multiple urinals is not duplicating, but replicating (repeating) the original. A copy represents an original artwork or a written text, but it is not the original. This is an important difference. Because in art there is no repetition having the identical composition. Replications (repetitions) of the very first (original) one are imitations. It is wrong for the artist to reproduce exactly the same work regardless of the reason and should not be associated with art.

There is also the problem of authenticity, as objects used in conceptual art are ready-made objects. Though conceptual artists deliberately abolish or ignore originality[2], this is a problem. Because the work is no longer an art object, it turns into a manufactured item. Let me illustrate this with an example. If works of art such as painting or sculpture are broken, torn and burned, the work will be damaged or destroyed. Regardless of the physical loss no bad consequence happens, because the concept in the conceptual art object will not be damaged. The artist signs another one of the same object, replaces it, and nothing changes although it is a replication (repetition). This is a handicap in conceptual art. A work of art can never be repeated identically; if it is done, it ceases to be an art object. Especially if these objects are presented in the category of conceptual art, all of their repetitions return to their original status. So the urinal (‘Fountain’) in the museum becomes just the same with the one in the restrooms.

There may be objections such as “Duchamp’s urinals are signed.” However, the repetitions of the work are not original. At best they are evaluated as reproductions or counterfeits. Therefore, regardless of the reason, conceptual art objects should not be more than one. This door should not be opened. What happens if it is opened? Let me state a few examples.

A smart manager can put a sign at a public restroom with urinals reading “Conceptual Art Gallery”. He can also put another sign on the door saying “An Exhibition of Duchamp’s Reproduction or Fake Fountains”. The following would be even more funny. Those who enter the restroom may either mess with the artwork or contribute to the return of the conceptual artwork to its original purpose!                Another example: the stores where bathroom appliances are sold can call themselves “art galleries”. The items could be labeled as “Objects of art waiting to be signed. Create your own artwork by signing your own concept”. You can imagine the rest and see how tragicomic situations can arise.

This sad situation is the result caused by those who cannot distinguish between the  notions, innovation in art and not every innovation can be art. The ones who make art in this way use the philosophy-based art jargon very well. They present their works with statements that are music to ears. But they forget this: if all the actions and the results that were embellished with nice expressions were easily welcome, we should have applauded all the so-called invasions aiming to bring peace and democracy. Therefore, we cannot – and we should not- accept every ‘art’ labeled activity as art in advance.

In the meantime, there are also some people stating “Conceptual art does not have to contain ideas, or it is just the art of objects.” I will continue writing about conceptual art and all those explanations, with good and bad examples.

Mustafa Günen

[1] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary

[2] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary