Greetings visitors,

Isn't still life all preconceived? Doesn't that qualify it, at least fundamentally, as conceptual?

One reason for this question is because I want to focus on conceptual work. But before I shoot I want to get this abstract idea clear in my mind.

Any insight into conceptual work will be appreciated.

Many thanks your help.

Phil

Sol Lewitt put it best IMO... "In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art."

Still life is just a bunch of 'stuff' put in a frame nicely and shot. Like the classic bowl of fruit. There isn't much meaning behind it, it's not telling a story or thought. It's just nice. Conceptual has to convey an idea. Of course, this is widely argued by many but that's how I see it.

Dave

Thanks so much Dave. Your work is inspiring and your words are very clear.

I feel myself being drawn to conceptual like a moth to a flame. I feel an addiction coming on. *smile*

Phil

Phil, walk away man, walk away. LOL... when the addiction hits it's life changing. That ain't always good, but I wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks.

Dave

I know I'll probably take some heat for this but conceptual work seems like the natural pinnacle of photography. This is just an intuitive feeling.

Maybe I should clarify and say 'it seems' that conceptual is the pinnacle of art in photography.

This doesn't mean I have any less respect or admiration for any other photographic genre. I love photography for the sake of photography.

I hope this makes sense. The written word can be a cause for much misunderstanding.

Phil

HI Phillip, I know what you mean. I've been struggling with this issue too.. Coming from a painting background, it was all conceptual, maybe not exactly in the sense Sol Lewitt says. So, I'm wondering, walking around shooting lovely things, scenes, moments, etc.. is it high art? Or does more thought have to be put behind it? Also, when I painted, I worked on series... Series that explored a "concept". For instance, bridges as metaphor. Naturally, after shooting thousands of images, I'm starting to buckle down and put thought behind a series... one, based on kinetic spokes, one of my shots. So, even if I run around shooting lovely things, I'm narrowing down the concept.. which mentally is helping me think of photography as "art". For me anyway. Also, this is helping me conceptualize shots, putting intent behind them.
Good thread..

Pure conceptualists bother me. . . A big idea is fine in itself, but why bother to make a finished artifact at all if the idea is the important thing? It feels like a cop out as the artwork invariably needs a ridiculous degree of verbiage to be understood. It can never stand by itself, or communicate the idea that led to it's construction. I can't feel anything but frustrated annoyance verging on contempt for a philosophy that rates the actual art object as practically irrelevant. 'Doing' is a big part of Art, and to cut it off seems to me to be willfully perverse. A big idea and a mind blowing finished product is my idea of a work of genius.
Don't get caught up in the bullshit Phillip ;-) make fabulous objects that feed the mind and the soul. . .
My 2p,
Jon

I believe still-life can support a concept... or not.

But I am with Jon on that. More than often conceptualism and subsequent verbiage are waved for the mere sake of justifying what is a poor and lazy achievement in the first place. In the end of the day it is the result, the process behind, the balance found between form and substance etc... that counts - no matter how fine and smart the idea/concept you come up with.

I can't agree.. if a concept works, it doesn't need any verbiage. I wouldn't read that much into it.

Thank you Patricia. You've provided some interesting insight and some things to deeply consider. It always interests me to hear the mindset of a painter approaching photography. With your gift you have the power to work from a completely blank canvas then add elements as you go. To create 'art' in photography (ie using an existing scene) has to very different and, it seems, requires a very different set of skills and creative approach. For example, sometimes, with the prudent use of cloning, photography is a necessarily subtractive process (to say nothing of the art of dodging and burning). Do you find that the photograhic 'canvas', so to speak, gives you more or less freedom to create? I think that, ultimately, this entire discussion revolves around creativity.

Absolutely. But how does a concept get communicated if there is no verbal explanation and very little to look at either. . . ? How do you, tyhe viewer know that it 'works' if you don't get told what the concept is? I'm all for less verbiage ;-) death to Artspeak and other suchlike impenetrable jargon.

Hi Jon,

Many thanks for joining in. I'm new to conceptual work so perhaps I haven't understood you. In other words, you may be going above my head. My feeling is that you are referring more to abstract than conceptual but maybe conceptual is a subset of abstract? Well, that's the point of opening this thread... to learn and grow.

Phil

Hi Jacques,

If I'm understanding everything correctly then this is a wonderfully insightful reply.... it really gets to heart of the matter for me. I especially like your reference to the balance found between form and substance.

Thanks

Phil

I'm on about the kind of 'conceptual art' that exists as a movement or trend in modern art, rather than about a piece of art, such as a still life, with a strong concept behind it, which you may have meant. If that makes sense ;-) Also, I don't know what I'm talking about ;-) Sorry to hijack the thread.
Jon