 |
 |
Interesting, Jeffrey. Conceptual art in the US is less associated with language than the Art & Language group suggests, I believe, which may be why the current poetry events seem more innovative to American practitioners. Conceptual art works include the works of such "non-verbal" artists as Christo, Robert Rauschenberg, and Yves Klein, among many others. Sol Lewitt's description is a clear and succinct statement of how the American art world characterises conceptual art and how work is categorized, though the machine bit sounds very Futurist (certainly functional for the current linguistic practice, however): "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." This published in Art Forum, June 1967 (who says Wikipedia has no virtues?) There are other things operating, of course … such as the collision with technology. Jaime On 7 Aug 2013, at 01:40, Jeffrey Side wrote: > "What’s in a Name?: The Art & Language Group and Conceptual Poetry" > > http://jeffrey-side.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/whats-in-name-art-language-group-and.html