Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

a defense of the “conceptual” process in art
adrian piper
I am very much aware of the thorniness (at this late date!) of using words like “detached” or
“objective” in relation to an artist’s work or attitude about his work. I’ve often attempted to
plow through people’s protests about the vulgarity of an artist’s non-involvement in his work
supposedly implied in the use of such terms. However, that is not at all what those words mean
to me; on the contrary—I think that a greater total involvement in one’s work is possible when
one attempts to be objective than when one does not. I have found that the limitations imposed
by decisions based on my personal “tastes” are absolutely stifling. Choices made through the
criteria of subjective likes and dislikes are to me nothing more than a kind of therapeutic egotitillation
that only inhibit further the possibility of sharing an artistic vision (as if it weren’t
difficult enough a thing to do as it is).
Besides, I really believe that truly good art is always made of broader stuff than the
personality of the artist. Think of all the hangups Cézanne had that he managed to transcend
in his work! I don’t mean to imply that great artists of the past necessarily knew and consciously
strove for this kind of objectivity—I don’t presume to know whether they did or not—but I
think that the mere fact of their work’s ability to affect us on any level is an indication that
they attained and shared this breadth of vision. The new terminology—“cool,” “rational,”