“Conceptual Art” treads the thin line between what we generally think as “artistic” and what as “non-artistic.” While most of us do associate the skills of the artist as the primary requisite for a great art, a thought process gives the concept much more weight. “Conceptual Art” is the baby of the latter. While the genre itself was given a name by the reputed artist, Henry Flynt, it had cramping birth pangs when it grew out of the existing “formalism” that existed in the art circles of America in the 60s.

Marcel Duchamp, considered the father of the “Conceptual Art Movement,” began with the concept of “Ready-mades.” He was the first artist to start metamorphosing ordinary, mundane, daily articles into artworks. The importance was not so much on displaying the dexterity of color or texture, as much it was on conveying a greater thought. The Society of Independent Artists rejected his exhibits, and refused to recognize them as art.

1960s was the flourishing period for new thoughts and soon this idea of “Conceptual Art” was taken to new mediums and subjects. “Installation Art” took on an independent stature and soon people were questioning the fundamentals of art. The doubting artists, themselves came up with answers through their art forms that surprised them as much as they did the audience. Sometimes the art pieces consisted of the arrangements of normal objects in a space, architectural curves, or raw shapes, and sometimes they outdid themselves by exhibiting nothing, calling them “Invisible Paintings” (Yves Klein did just that in his exhibit, “The Void,” 1958).

The initial 60s and 70s led to an explosion of conceptual artists, such as Henry Flynt, Robert Morris, Adrian Piper, and Ray Johnson, who abhorred the idea of big galleries and what they called the commercialization of art. Read the rest of this entry »