I’m sick of concepts
The word « concept » is a cringe one to me. It has come to mean a whole lot of different things, away from the original meaning of the word, which is « a general and abstract idea » for short. A concept is therefore an idea, it’s as simple as that. An abstract idea that is thought to explain a tangible thing, whether it be a phenomenon, an object, a thing. This « thing » is the origin of a process of thought leading to a concept, which more often than not is constructed to be an explanatory notion in regard to a perceptible singularity. There’s beauty in a concept, it’s a way for the human mind to try to only begin to explain and understand his surroundings, his own feelings, his desires… Concepts are small seeds to the enhanced perception of reality, growing ideas that make people think about the abstract. The word itself symbolizes a desire to know more about the world, isn’t that beautiful?
Now, this word has lost its first meaning and has come to designate only one part of its original intention: the abstract. It has become a word we use to make fun of things by implying that they’re voided of immediate understanding, and a word that can describe an elitist current of thought that can’t be understood by everyone. So instead of meaning « trying to understand », it’s being used as « non-understandable ». This shift in definition has been largely driven by the art community, as we begun to talk of concepts and conceptual art in contemporary works. In art, a concept, as its first definition implies, is a way to explain the idea behind a representation. The artist deploys concepts to insert a deep meaning into his or her work. Unfortunately, sometimes these artistic concepts that carry art works are often elitist and hard to grasp while looking at a pile of rocks next to a concise cartel in a trendy art gallery. Which is why the meaning of the word changed when it was used and re-used tirelessly by the art community.
« Conceptual » slowly became a way to excuse the fact that -possibly, not always- an art work doesn’t show any visual or sensitive qualities that can be directly perceived by the viewer/user. It can be a good thing, when the work is complex, when the point is hard to grasp and you just need a little explanation. It’s fine if it’s interesting enough without the concept. But somehow, sometimes, saying « it’s conceptual » comes to mean « you just don’t get it » and becomes a vague excuse for that said work, when it doesn’t present any direct qualities worth noticing. So for a work of art to work, it needs both concept and visual/sensatory stimulation, which is a consideration that is often forgotten in the name of the « wide idea », « big picture » or such. This coexistence is essential to make an art piece, and is unfortunately often unbalanced, with concept overthrowing the perceptible or visual stimuli pushing ideas under the carpet.
Being a student in art school, even though my focus is on graphic design, I’ve heard only too much about this new definition of concepts, and I’ve learned it to be a great excuse for no actual content, or no actual work done. Teachers give us first concepts, which are always interesting mind you, to deploy our work from, and we students have to implement other related ideas into our graphic response to this first subject. More often than not, the primary topic will be a vague sentence which makes little to no sense, but hey, it’s a concept. I know I seem to bash the very idea of a concept, but I’m really not: I’ve enjoyed working on these abstract subjects and it has brought me to amazing ideas and evolutions in my own work. The problem I find is that behind this « concept », you can pretty much do anything, as shitty or irrelevant as you want, as long as you have the ability to, well, bullshit around it with big words, big ideas and big confidence.
Here an art school situation I’ll make up so you’ll see my point: topic of the class, given by the teacher, is « Space(s): new paths ». Yes, that sounds interesting, challenging, but kind of vague. Nevermind, it’s still a starting point for working, right? I’ll draw three random lines on shattered glass (which will take me about 4 minutes) and say it’s about « a dystopian vision of our sensitive geography and the gaps between reality and expectation in today’s broken society ». Sounds about right, doesn’t it? What’s that? You didn’t understand this concept when you glanced at my scattered garbage enhanced by three weak white lines? Mind you, I might get an A for this project…
So here’s my point: I love concepts, I think art, and graphic design, should feed off them, but I suspect they shouldn’t bloat because of them. It’s like a healthy human being: mind and body should be in sync, and one should not be chosen over the other. Concepts need experience and experience needs concept. When I work on a project, I usually start with making to slowly find an idea that will keep me going. Recently, I found out people expect me to provide big words for a project that doesn’t need more ideas. They want me to bloat my work with concepts instead of just making something, which actually physically angers me. Hand in hand, concept and work are great, but if one begins to dominate the other, we’ll end up with blank canvases and art-afficionados telling everyone else « you just don’t get it, do you? », making art impossible to grasp for the common man. Is that what art is about?
