Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

and from the language of painterly and sculptural form to various philosophical, scientific, and
other academic lexicons, Lippard now felt, had not given artists any more of a foothold in the
world around them than they had had before. Indeed, it was “unlikely,” she lamented, “that
conceptual art will be any better equipped to affect the world any different than, or even as
much as, its less ephemeral counterparts.” 16
Similarly, Seth Siegelaub, the organizer-entrepreneur who was, perhaps, the single most
influential figure associated with the movement, 17 argued a related point at the end of a 1973
discussion about “the success of conceptual art” with Michel Claura: “the economic pattern
associated with conceptual art is remarkably similar to that of other artistic movements: to
purchase a unique work cheap and resell it at a high price.” His remarks also betrayed more
resentment than Lippard and a greater sense of having been let down by the movement:
Conceptual art, more than all previous types of art, questions the fundamental nature of art.
Unhappily, the question is strictly limited to the exclusive domain of fine art. There is still potential
of it enabling an examination of all that surrounds art, but in reality, conceptual artists are
dedicated only to exploring avant-garde aesthetic problems. 18
Around the same time that Lippard and Siegelaub were working through their doubts,
part-time conceptualist Robert Smithson developed a similar but more extreme critique suggesting
that conceptual art not only was unable to achieve its aims but also was unknowingly
reaffirming the political and economic interests of the very institutions it was posturing against.
The central premise of conceptualism, he argued in 1972, was not art for art’s sake but even
worse: “production for production’s sake.” Where art for art’s sake had still relied on a notion
of “quality” (albeit a very mystified and abstract one)to justify itself in social terms, production
for production’s sake could dispense with the interests of the audience altogether and justify
itself simply on the basis of its own activity: it assumed that conceptualizing was valuable on its
own, was “productive,” without any consideration for whether or not the particular concepts
produced served specific social needs or functions. The conceptual artist presents him or herself
“like a B. F. Skinner rat doing his ‘tough’ little tricks.” 19 As in the lab rat’s compliance with the
dictates of the scientist, Smithson argued, conceptual art served the business needs of galleries
and collectors in the wake of the 1960s boom in the art market: “Because galleries and museums
have been victims of ‘cut-backs,’” he wrote, “they need a cheaper product—objects are
thus reduced to ‘ideas,’ and as a result we get ‘Conceptual Art.’ Compared to isolated objects,
isolated ideas in the metaphysical context of a gallery offer...anaesthetic bargain.” 20
blake stimson the promise of conceptual art xliii