Conceptual Art

I believe he makes a few good statements in this piece about conceptual art. Let me start by mentioning his last statement. “ Conceptual art is only good when the idea is good.” Many people might find that problematic, because that is subjective to any one’s viewpoint of what is good or bad but besides that, I think many people put out art that has no kind of rational thinking or plan, or even meaning behind it and call it. They look at art’s history and say that they are working along the same lines of artists that have been revered for their work like Pollock and Picasso and say that this is not that much different from the scribbles they produced in their career, not realizing that there is intent and reasoning for their work. I believe that you must have a sound logic that you can articulate for your work to be even considered as art. Otherwise you could just be creating chicken scratch.
The second phrase I wanted to mention was, “Once out of his hand the artist has no control over the way the viewer will perceive the work.” Especially for conceptual art this is definitely the case. The figures or so abstract that it would be hard to refute any claim that this work is this or that. The artist may have had an intention but if the viewer can find a personal meaning out of it that the artist may not have intended, I think the art has then done its job. The art should get people to think, to think about anything, to feel, to want to talk and share their experience. In other words be a conversation starter.