The Most Important Aspect of a Piece of Conceptual Art Is

The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding "the notion that the creative person is a kind of ape that has to be explained past the civilized critic." This should be adept news to both artists and apes. With this assurance I hope to justify his confidence. To continue a baseball game metaphor (one creative person wanted to striking the brawl out of the park, some other to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched), I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself.

I WILL REFER TO THE KIND of art in which I am involved as conceptual fine art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. * When an artist uses a conceptual form of fine art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the fine art. This kind of art is non theoretical or illustrative of theories; information technology is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore commonly he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose however, that the conceptual artist is out to diameter the viewer. It is but the expectation of an emotional kicking, to which ane conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this fine art.

* In other forms of fine art the concept may be changed in the process of execution.

Conceptual fine art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or serial of pieces is a device that is used at times simply to be ruined. Logic may be used to cover-up the real intent of the artist to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such as logic vs. illogic). * The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the advent of simplicity considering they seem inevitable. In terms of idea the artist is costless to even surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.

* Some ideas are logical in formulation and illogical perceptually.

What the work of fine art looks like isn't too of import. It has to look like something if information technology has physical form. No affair what course information technology may finally have it must begin with an thought. Information technology is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. In one case given concrete reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of all, including the artist. (I utilise the word "perception" to mean the anticipation of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both.) The piece of work of fine art can simply be perceived after it is completed.

Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would exist called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, low-cal and color art.

Since the functions of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other mail-fact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, so capricious or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and other whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does non necessarily have to be rejected if information technology does not look well. Sometimes what is initially idea to be awkward will somewhen be visually pleasing.

To work with a programme that is pre-set is ane fashion of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in plow. The plan would pattern the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a express number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each instance however, the artist would select the bones form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. Subsequently that the fewer decisions made in the form of completing the piece of work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective every bit much as possible. That is the reason for using this method.

When an creative person uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily bachelor form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammer for the total work. In fact it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more hands get an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms merely disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.

Conceptual art doesn't actually take much to practise with mathematics, philosophy or whatsoever other mental discipline. The mathematics used past near artists is unproblematic arithmetics or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and is non an illustration of any system of philosophy.

It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the creative person by seeing the art. In one case out of his paw the artist has no command over the fashion a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different manner.

Recently there has been much written well-nigh minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called chief structures, reductive, rejective, cool, and mini-fine art. No artist I know will ain upwards to any of these either. Therefore I conclude that information technology is part of a undercover linguistic communication that fine art critics employ when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines. Mini-fine art is best considering information technology reminds one of mini-skirts and long-legged girls. It must refer to very pocket-sized works of art. This is a very expert idea. Perhaps "mini-art" shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very minor person, say under 5 feet tall. If and then, much good work volition be found in the primary schools (master school master structures). If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, and then all the steps in the process are of importance. The idea itself, fifty-fifty if non made visual is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps—scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed work, models, studies, thoughts, conversations—are of interest. Those that evidence the thought process of the artist are sometimes more than interesting than the concluding production.

Determining what size a piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then information technology would seem any size would practice. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size lone would exist impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may go inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the piece of work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower. I think the piece must exist large plenty to requite the viewer whatever information he needs to empathize the piece of work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this agreement. (Unless the thought is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or admission.)

Space can be thought of equally the cubic expanse occupied past a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that tin be measured. The intervals and measurements tin can be important to a piece of work of art. If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the slice. If space is relatively unimportant information technology can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart), to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might too get a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance. Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures. The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function.

Architecture, whether it is a piece of work of fine art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not commonsensical. When three dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics of architecture such as forming utilitarian areas it weakens its office equally art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the large size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the class at the expense of losing the thought of the piece.

New materials are ane of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. In that location is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and big most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones that lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a proficient artist to use new materials and make them into a work of fine art. The danger is, I call back, in making the physicality of the materials so of import that information technology becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).

Iii-dimensional fine art of any kind is a physical fact. This physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is fabricated to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his centre or emotions. The physicality of a iii-dimensional object and then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want to amend this emphasis on materiality as much equally possible or to use it in a paradoxical manner. (To convert it into an idea.) This kind of art then, should be stated with the about economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may too exist stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the course beingness unimportant.

These paragraphs are non intended as categorical imperatives merely the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. * These ideas are the consequence of my piece of work as an artist and are subject to change equally my experience changes. I take tried to country them with every bit much clarity as possible. If the statements I make are unclear information technology may mean the thinking is unclear. Fifty-fifty while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip past.) I do not abet a conceptual class of art for all artists. I take found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. Information technology is ane fashion of making art: other ways adjust other artists. Nor do I retrieve all conceptual art merits the viewer'south attending. Conceptual art is merely good when the thought is good.

* I dislike the term "work of art" considering I am not in favor of work and the term sounds pretentious. Only I don't know what other term to use.

—Sol LeWitt