What’s notable about the present attack on "conceptual" art by Dutton and many, many others is that it is a symmetrical, distorted reflection of the very critique of "traditional" art that led artists to adopt diverse "conceptual" strategies in the first place. A great many of these (e.g. process art, abject art, performance art) attracted the zeal of their purveyors in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s because they seemed to promise some kind of critique of the art market. Traditional art forms like painting and sculpture were -- and still are, in some circles -- considered to be corrupt, because the objects they produce lend themselves to being sold, owned and traded. Barbara Rose expressed this silly conception in a particularly hyperbolic passage from the Partisan Review: "For some time now I have felt that the radicalism of Minimal and Conceptual art is fundamentally political, that its implicit aim is to discredit thoroughly the forms and institutions of dominant bourgeois culture."

The fact that such strategies devolved inexorably into their own sort of market-friendly style just proves a point. On both sides, "traditional" and "conceptual," the perceived ill of the other is actually just the displaced face of the market itself, with its tendency to transmogrify and vulgarize everything. Which should provide a lesson for critics about the kind of promises they make for art: There are no formal or esthetic solutions to the political and economic dilemmas that art faces -- only political and economic solutions. Consequently, the only critical temperament that makes any real sense is an eclectic one that doesn’t build up one or the other side into the answer for problems that they both share.

- bill 11-30-2009 9:02 pm

I have read Dutton's book The Art Instinct and I do not understand why anyone is taking him seriously at all.
- sally mckay 12-01-2009 12:59 pm [add a comment]


knuckleheads need to be tamped down.
- bill 12-01-2009 1:09 pm [add a comment]


Or ignored...but I guess its too late for that.
- sally mckay 12-01-2009 1:11 pm [add a comment]


true. the better person ignores.
- bill 12-01-2009 1:37 pm [add a comment]


I used to follow his Arts & Letters Daily in the late 90s. If there was an article to be found critical of continental theory anywhere on the Web he always gave it a slot. There's a reason he likes Acheulian hand axes so much--he's a real cave man.
- tom moody 12-01-2009 5:17 pm [add a comment]


part of a tribe who think Komar and Melamid were doing science.
- anonymous (guest) 12-01-2009 6:56 pm [add a comment]





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.