Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

72
I believe that any material can be used. For example, we can use ready-made paint—it
would be stupid to want to make our own! But using the latest technical discovery for its
novelty seems foolish. We can speak of “con art.” In this sense, artists of all eras have never
proceeded otherwise, but today the illusion has been stripped bare. On the other hand, if this
state of affairs exists, it is not because artists today are less clever than their predecessors. Perhaps
they simply lack lucidity, they are unaware. As for some, and not the lesser artists, they
find that illusionism still works rather well, therefore they have no reason to deprive themselves
of it. I believe that it is not a question of a shortage of ideas as some would have us believe, but
of an inherent process in art. Modern art has the great advantage of making evident why art of
all times has been futile. The most intuitive among today’s artists, sensing their uselessness and
not accepting it, resort to methods of diversion, either by adding heterogeneous elements—
noises, television, smell—to art which is already hybrid by nature or by realizing, in spite of
all their contortions, the ineffectiveness (historically understood) of their works compared to
Matisse or Pollock, by turning to expressions that they believe are new, because they discover
them, namely cinema, choreography, light, movement . . . They de-bone art and, unwittingly
or not, make it evident that art is an “emollient,” a hoax, and unacceptable.
Thanks to Rembrandt, Picasso, Schoeffer, Ucello, Chapelain-Midy, Stella, Rubens,
Churchill, Gilardi, Johns, Monet, Pollock, Jacquet, Schneider, Judd, etc., for showing us everything
that we must no longer do and furthermore what should never have been done. I don’t
doubt for a second that Giotto today would have used electricity or electro-magnets. It is not
because they are being used that anything is being questioned. There is nothing revolutionary
about their use, and it must not distract art critics or scare them away, whether they are “forand-blind”
and speak of inherent artistic revolution, or “against-and-blind” and speak anti-art,
of betrayal. Open your eyes. It is only art. And full-fledged art, just as Cézanne or Mondrian
are full-fledged artists.
G. B.: It is true that the artist, regardless of the style he chooses to work in, always suggests
a dimension beyond, and he obliges the spectator to adopt his thought patterns. He leads,
channels the spectator’s thoughts down the route that he wishes.
D. B.: I call that the “reactionary” role of the artist. When you believe in art, certain
things are seen in relation to it—if not, they don’t exist, which seems absurd to me. Art is, as
they say, a truth that, by symbolization, development and organization, shows that the exterior
world exists and is beautiful, and wouldn’t be so if art were not. This is actually what art is and
what we must revolt against. Thinking and saying that “there was no London fog before
Turner” is very pretty and poetic, but it is outrageous. It’s an attack on the mind of the individ-