Concept over image
...or how we sometimes use the easy way out.
This would be somewhat a rant but since I promised a photo on each post...here's one.
![]() |
| ©Tanya Decheva, Sinemorets, 2016 |
What does conceptual art mean? On the Tate website you can find this description:
Conceptual art is art for which the idea (or concept) behind the work is more important than the finished art object. It emerged as an art movement in the 1960s and the term usually refers to art made from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s.
As I started writing this I had a certain opinion. You see, modern day conceptual photography was something I didn't understand. My main thesis would gravitate on the understanding that an author would try to save his bullshit photos with a text. People are so concerned with the concept that they neglect the image. Photos are usually dull - composition is off, light doesn't play a role, no thought on using colors and tones to emphasize on something in the image. In other words, a photo that has none soever aesthetic quality. That drove me mad - you say you're a photographer, but the text is far more engaging than your photographs.
And then I realized that I'm not so familiar with conceptual art, with the exception of one or two authors. A bit of distraction - a conceptual image by Barbara Kruger...
![]() |
| ©Barbara Kruger, Business as usual, 1987 |
![]() |
| ©Helena Almeida, Study for Inner Improvement, 1977 |
![]() |
| ©John Baldessari, Violent Space Series: Nine Feet (Of Victim And Crowd) Arranged By Position In Scene, 1976 |
![]() |
| ©Bieke Depoorter, As it may be, 2017 |
More to read:
- Conceptual Art - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Conceptual Art - The Art Story
- Art Movement: Conceptual Art







Comments
Post a Comment