This Is Not a Thread: (Conceptual Art)

but the more that distinction is stressed, the more tension there is between the physical and conceptual aspects of any work. and this apparent bifurcation is itself really interesting. i mean for me it seems to have precedents in eg. con-(or even tran)-substantiation (and that kind of calvinism is reflected maybe in the strict puritanism of eg. Weiner), or like marxist dialectics of the commodity itself (in a simplistic way i mean). But it ends up pointing at itself, at real or illusory values in art and how we can even deal w/ that, or make provisions for that. Especially when what art itself is might be completely outside our purview, shadowy and elusive.

one thing i find interesting about it is the way the artist is privileged in this idea. Like if you separate the object from the idea, and view the object as merely a trace or part of the art, then that reduces the value of the object.

hmm

Recognizing copyright in Wildflower Works presses too hard on these basic principles. We fully accept that the artistic community might classify Kelley’s garden as a work of postmodern conceptual art. We acknowledge as well that copyright’s prerequisites of authorship and fixation are broadly defined. But the law must have some limits; not all conceptual art may be copyrighted. In the ordinary copyright case, authorship and fixation are not contested; most works presented for copyright are unambiguously authored and unambiguously fixed. But this is not an ordinary case. A living garden like Wildflower Works is neither “authored” nor “fixed” in the senses required for copyright.

http://clancco.com/wp/2011/02/16/vara_moral-rights_sculpture_originality/

I'm going to buy a condominium and fill it with George Condo works and call it "Magna What, Magna Who"

http://albumsbyconceptualartists.tumblr.com/