This is is the clearest, most articulate, most all-encompassing expression of Conceptual Art I have ever heard. Way to go, Jon Anderson! You really know your stuff. I'm impressed.
This guy is the cutest art history professor I have ever seen -- and he's SO into what he's talking about. I wish I'd have had a teacher like him for contemporary art history classes.
What I get from Duchamp is much simpler. He was saying (with his art) to the elites of the art world, "No, it's not only you who determine what constitutes art! Every artist does so as well. Get used to it.".
I've been searching for so long to find someone trying to dig deep into these "works of art". I finally found it. And it's ridiculous as I thought it'd be.
Maybe, but I see it more as a rebellion against what I call the "ArtSpeak" world---the academic art world that pooh-poohs a simple, universal truth: beauty (or Art) is in the eye of the beholder...100%. There are no "standards" or "rules" because those are only the formal opinions of the academics.
A n honest question...well art is not necesarely a merchendise good...som art work is not about the object or selling, but about art. Some art you can buy some you cannot....but to make it simple to you, you can a bit imagine it like buying the coppy right (in case there is no object to "buy") or a pattent. And I agree with many of the comments below- so add my answer to these. Hope this helps. Also it is worth follwing his lectures formt he beggining, so you understnad how we got to here.
No mentionning of Margritte's painting, The treachery of images made decades before the Kosuth? Strange certainly in a course focussing in the end strongly on the meaning of language vs the object, reality, exc.
It's really kind of strange to look at some issues that western art and philosophy generated throughout 20 century from a point of anthropological backround, even though I'm aware of the cooperation of those fields, I still feel like anthropologists that did the fieldwork back then and wrote about it were thrown into the pool of what 'meaning' means sort of before these famouse artistic and philosophical statements were made because ultimately, the encounter of a completely different frame of cultural meaning throws you really quickly into this deconstractive space...I mean, try to objectively speak about witchcraft like Evans-Pritchard did in 1937... I just think it's a shame how the culture gets sort of submerged into itself while comparision to another framework would have yielded much better results in much more effective way. If deligent examinations of different culture systems were made way before that, which, by the way, we had the opportunity to do so and I mean, cultures have always been borrowing form each other but the careful examination of how different groups arrived at their conslusions, it could have been better than getting into so much theoretical 'what ifs' and so many dead ends. And even if though you'd read western philosophers and intellectuals back then, I guess it would have felt kind of weird to see Kosuth's chairs in 1965, like really? You think the meaning is kind of floating above the objects? Well, don't you say... so maybe it's kind of a popularization and acting on public opinion which again, it's a shame that you have to do some 'serious work' to do something like that... Oh well, mysticism has been a part of our western culture since like forever, so maybe it's just the problem of selling that to the public...
But isn't LeWitt only placing boundaries on what can be made? Is this like saying the limitations are the art? While it may be a description of the fundamentals of any system or organization, is this necessarily art? Do we want to pay that much attention to it given our limited life spans? Is this the deepest mine to dig for meaning?
Why is conceptual art so difficult to define? What is Jon Anderson’s definition? How, after Conceptualism, is “art” defined? What now is the function of art? What is the strategy (or strategies) used? What now is the job and importance of the artist? Why does Joseph Kosuth use a photograph rather than a drawing? What do Conceptualists (especially Sol Lewitt) think art is, what does it function like (one word answer)?
I think there's some truth to what you say. But when you see how influential he has been to contempoirary art, it is obvious that he said much more than that. He questioned art itself. His art is still elitist in a way, don't you think?
This may be hard to follow, due to the historic contest one needs to be familiar with to be able to understand. My sugestion would be to maybe start with his first lecture, and then follow cronologically...as then you will slowly be introduced to this spot. Good luck!
Art = Stylised communication. Art is always seeking to explain something, to make a statement, and even though we have a tendency to do that in an aesthetically pleasing way (with skill and beauty) its not necessary to do so. You CAN separate what is being communicated from beauty and still have art. You can still communicate creatively without having tremendous skill. Duchamp did it by presenting us with objects to consider - to contemplate the meaning of. Some people could "read" the meaning, while others thought it ran against what art was, skillfully produced works by seasoned artisans. He was saying that you dont need any of this skill as long as you can visually communicate a comprehensive message.
+handsomefingers "art" is the umbrella term used for all stylised methods of communication, including both that which provides rich visual narrative *and* that which requires you to consider your own interpretation. Say there's 2 paintings - one of a red circle, one of a blue square. Which do you prefer, and why? That is a basic conceptualist artwork - it's is self exploring, it aims to make you think about your own reaction to it.
How on earth can anyone sit through 90 minutes of this? I teach Modernism in art history and I am already lost in references to this that and the other thing with no idea what this person is actually talking about.
I set troughout all the series and I LOVE it. I do understand that it may be difficult to follow though. it is very very philosophical- which well is part of where contemporary art got. Not sure what modernismin your part of the world is considered. Here moderninsm is associated to the end of the 19th century- begging of the 20th. This is about post Duchamp art-
Ellen B Cutler well, this video is part of a series called ARTS 315: Contemporary Art Trends. He starts with a review. Maybe you understand better by starting from lecture 1.
![[ARTS 315] Postmodern Strategies: Mixed Messages and Undecidability - Jon Anderson](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-uSIjMaqyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ARTS 315] Postmodern Strategies: Mixed Messages and Undecidability - Jon Anderson](/img/tr.png)
![[ARTS 315] Postmodern Strategies: The Canvas as an Arena: Jackson Pollock - Jon Anderson](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k7fodAy0jbU/mqdefault.jpg)
This is is the clearest, most articulate, most all-encompassing expression of Conceptual Art I have ever heard. Way to go, Jon Anderson! You really know your stuff. I'm impressed.
This guy is the cutest art history professor I have ever seen -- and he's SO into what he's talking about. I wish I'd have had a teacher like him for contemporary art history classes.
Mr. Anderson. I really enjoy the way you present Art History. Thank you!
Completly lost track of time watching this. He is such a great teacher!
This guy is an amazing. teacher. I'm so impressed. Very well articulated, clear and simple.
What I get from Duchamp is much simpler. He was saying (with his art) to the elites of the art world, "No, it's not only you who determine what constitutes art! Every artist does so as well. Get used to it.".
Brilliant series of lectures!
I highly recommend it to any art lover!
I am drooling over this guy and he's drooling over kosuth's genius
omg he helped me just that little bit :) I'll defiantly come back to watch more
What wonderful videos!!!Thank you Mr. Anderson; your video is very useful
I've been searching for so long to find someone trying to dig deep into these "works of art". I finally found it. And it's ridiculous as I thought it'd be.
Seems like these people are immerse on a very extreme idealism :"c
he is so young and knows so much!
Over the course of watching this i started to understand his shirt pick:)
THE WAY HE LAUGHS THEN QUICKLY SAYS ANYWAY AND GOES BACK TO SERIOUS MODE
The word art has never mattered. Drop it and u may be more open to the breadth of this human practice
This is great, thanks.
Maybe, but I see it more as a rebellion against what I call the "ArtSpeak" world---the academic art world that pooh-poohs a simple, universal truth: beauty (or Art) is in the eye of the beholder...100%. There are no "standards" or "rules" because those are only the formal opinions of the academics.
how can you buy art as an idea if anyone else can think it?
do you have to buy it?
definitely, that's what conceptual art is all about, but purchasing a thought is a funny idea
which is essentially what art is supposed to do, or what how the function ends up being (in most cases). so yea, good point
A n honest question...well art is not necesarely a merchendise good...som art work is not about the object or selling, but about art. Some art you can buy some you cannot....but to make it simple to you, you can a bit imagine it like buying the coppy right (in case there is no object to "buy") or a pattent.
And I agree with many of the comments below- so add my answer to these. Hope this helps.
Also it is worth follwing his lectures formt he beggining, so you understnad how we got to here.
I mean the beggining of series....this lecture is a mid of a course
Sol LeWitt seems to be something like, DNA is the lifeform. The actual implementation is trivial.
No mentionning of Margritte's painting, The treachery of images made decades before the Kosuth? Strange certainly in a course focussing in the end strongly on the meaning of language vs the object, reality, exc.
It's really kind of strange to look at some issues that western art and philosophy generated throughout 20 century from a point of anthropological backround, even though I'm aware of the cooperation of those fields, I still feel like anthropologists that did the fieldwork back then and wrote about it were thrown into the pool of what 'meaning' means sort of before these famouse artistic and philosophical statements were made because ultimately, the encounter of a completely different frame of cultural meaning throws you really quickly into this deconstractive space...I mean, try to objectively speak about witchcraft like Evans-Pritchard did in 1937... I just think it's a shame how the culture gets sort of submerged into itself while comparision to another framework would have yielded much better results in much more effective way. If deligent examinations of different culture systems were made way before that, which, by the way, we had the opportunity to do so and I mean, cultures have always been borrowing form each other but the careful examination of how different groups arrived at their conslusions, it could have been better than getting into so much theoretical 'what ifs' and so many dead ends. And even if though you'd read western philosophers and intellectuals back then, I guess it would have felt kind of weird to see Kosuth's chairs in 1965, like really? You think the meaning is kind of floating above the objects? Well, don't you say... so maybe it's kind of a popularization and acting on public opinion which again, it's a shame that you have to do some 'serious work' to do something like that... Oh well, mysticism has been a part of our western culture since like forever, so maybe it's just the problem of selling that to the public...
But isn't LeWitt only placing boundaries on what can be made? Is this like saying the limitations are the art? While it may be a description of the fundamentals of any system or organization, is this necessarily art? Do we want to pay that much attention to it given our limited life spans? Is this the deepest mine to dig for meaning?
Please keep the artwork constantly in view while discussing it.
Why is conceptual art so difficult to define?
What is Jon Anderson’s definition?
How, after Conceptualism, is “art” defined?
What now is the function of art?
What is the strategy (or strategies) used?
What now is the job and importance of the artist?
Why does Joseph Kosuth use a photograph rather than a drawing?
What do Conceptualists (especially Sol Lewitt) think art is, what does it function like (one word answer)?
Worth investing time to see all the course, so you will get a good answer to this.
Its not really that difficult to define - its just art where the idea is more important than the final act or object.
Why is the camera fixated on the prof instead of the Art?!?! For god's sake people use your brain!
I think there's some truth to what you say. But when you see how influential he has been to contempoirary art, it is obvious that he said much more than that. He questioned art itself. His art is still elitist in a way, don't you think?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
This may be hard to follow, due to the historic contest one needs to be familiar with to be able to understand. My sugestion would be to maybe start with his first lecture, and then follow cronologically...as then you will slowly be introduced to this spot.
Good luck!
Art = Stylised communication. Art is always seeking to explain something, to make a statement, and even though we have a tendency to do that in an aesthetically pleasing way (with skill and beauty) its not necessary to do so. You CAN separate what is being communicated from beauty and still have art. You can still communicate creatively without having tremendous skill. Duchamp did it by presenting us with objects to consider - to contemplate the meaning of. Some people could "read" the meaning, while others thought it ran against what art was, skillfully produced works by seasoned artisans. He was saying that you dont need any of this skill as long as you can visually communicate a comprehensive message.
In that case what is the point of using the special term called "art"?
+handsomefingers "art" is the umbrella term used for all stylised methods of communication, including both that which provides rich visual narrative *and* that which requires you to consider your own interpretation.
Say there's 2 paintings - one of a red circle, one of a blue square. Which do you prefer, and why? That is a basic conceptualist artwork - it's is self exploring, it aims to make you think about your own reaction to it.
Mr Wolfe But then, what's not art in that case? Everything is art, which makes the term "art" meaningless.
If you need JS Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or Bartok's music explained to you. you are deaf. If you need Art explained to you, you are blind.
Not true at all lol
he is very cute...however he talks textbook i can find at a local bookstore....maybe thats what he aims for
How on earth can anyone sit through 90 minutes of this? I teach Modernism in art history and I am already lost in references to this that and the other thing with no idea what this person is actually talking about.
+Ellen B Cutler if you are lost, replay the video
I set troughout all the series and I LOVE it.
I do understand that it may be difficult to follow though. it is very very philosophical- which well is part of where contemporary art got.
Not sure what modernismin your part of the world is considered. Here moderninsm is associated to the end of the 19th century- begging of the 20th. This is about post Duchamp art-
Ellen B Cutler well, this video is part of a series called ARTS 315: Contemporary Art Trends. He starts with a review. Maybe you understand better by starting from lecture 1.
seems pretty young to be a college teacher.