A Punch In The Face

Concept Art is actually quite a lot of fun, if I may say so.

So this one Tuesday, we were given the task of exploring three different categories of art in society – these were Concept Art, Pop Art and, of course, Minimalism. Debate is always fun but it somehow gets even more attention-grabbing when it turns into a question about exactly what and how art can be categorized.

Now pop art is exceedingly interesting as a challenge to contemporary traditions in fine art by using imagery from popular culture, and Minimalism is significant in its ‘less is more’ attitude towards art and execution, with its beliefs in bare essentials and its existence as a reaction against the art movement called Abstract Expressionism. But what continually interests me is the fascination that surrounds every aspect of Concept Art.

Concept Art, or Conceptualism, is art in which priority is given more to the concept or the idea than to the aesthetics and the materials involved. Over the course of the years, conceptual art has also come to be regarded as that form of art that avoids the traditional skills of sculpture and painting. Conceptual art, in essence, is that which gives more importance to the notion behind every work of art than to the effort that is put into making it visually appealing – note that the term ‘concept’, while subjective, in no way gives allusion to what the artist intends to communicate. An artist’s intention is completely different from the concept his art is based on.

But beyond the basic definition of what conceptual art entails, there is one thing that continues to enrapture me every time I find myself faced with the idea of conceptual art – and that is the directness with which every single thing is executed.

Everything about conceptual art has this blunt quality to it that appears to bulldozer straight through your mind, brushing aside every piece of unnecessary bullshit that it comes across. Perhaps the message is not always clear, but in the end, every thing about it will always be a punch in the face, which is incredibly refreshing if you compare it to the various aspects of contemporary art. I mean, take a look at One and Three Chairs by Joseph Kusouth and the works of Sol LeWitt and you’ll see what I mean.

But you know what’s funny? The fact that there have been few artistic movements in the entire history of art that have been plagued with as much argument and difference in opinion as conceptual art. An individual might either find it incredibly invigorating as a method or might consider it bad taste, outrageous, and even dismiss it as not being art altogether. Conceptualism, as it has been observed, can only have one out of either – you either absolutely adore it or you absolutely abhor it. It’s one of those ‘can’t-have-it-both-ways’ situations, I would presume.

But the thing about conceptual art is that its entire intention is to incite a difference in opinion. Conceptual art, in all its apparent laziness, actually actively seeks out to make you question every single thing about art, artistic process, artistic intention and even artistic belief. In its brashness you find a force that pierces through your very being, actively coercing you into challenging everything about what you consider ‘real’ and ‘true’. Conceptual art is that which sets out to bring you to a stage of introspection in the simplest and the most direct way possible, not giving a damn about how pretty it looks as it does it.

Conceptual art, in its essence, is part of the force that makes you rebel – rebel against that which is probably one of the biggest enemies mankind can ever face.

Blind faith.

Unquestioning belief in what has been continually put forth as ‘true’ or even ‘proper’.

Perhaps you are not very skilled. This does not matter when it comes to conceptual art because skills are unnecessary for simply asking ‘why’.

And that is what I respect about it the most – the fact that it does not bring with it skill-based expectations. Anyone can do it, as long as you have a point to prove.

Now doesn’t that just sound amazingly refreshing?

I do suppose I ought to include a little tidbit about our attempts to do a bit of pop art ourselves, and so I ask you not to find our efforts too amusing. We (i.e. Anukool Raman, Karishma B.C., Arushi Gupta and me) decided to take up Flappy Bird (that annoying little game) as a popular phenomenon and make a little something out of it.

We did try, even though our execution did not turn as planned. To be fair, though, we didn’t have more than an hour and it was actually quite fun (if a bit frustrating).

Concept note: Flappy Bird. Flappy Bird. Flappy Bird.

(aren't they adorable?)

My explorations on this particular Tuesday weren’t as skill-based as they were in expanding even more in my mental discoveries. When questions of context and metaphoric appear through what seems like a haze of doubt and conjecture, our minds can only respond in the way it knows – and that is with more conjecture. But what’s interesting is how an answer slowly unfolds and emerges through the conjecture to make your perspective extend some more, and what’s even more interesting is how your mind adapts to this change in thought process.

Every single inquiry, every single argument played a significant role in making me learn just a little more. And I can’t help but be grateful because this was exactly what I was looking for when I made the decision to choose what I had chosen.

Thank god for that – I don’t know what I’d be like if I’d chosen the alternative.

Good day!