Have you ever seen a piece of conceptual art and wondered why it was famous? You are not alone. Art has always been a very powerful form of expression. Conveying political opinions, emotions, the beauty of our world and so on. But, conceptual art seems to lack that deep form of expression seen in more classic pieces, or in the very least, clear expression. While one could marvel at the unique take on slices of our world and the complex ways of seeing reality, some are without talent and very confusing. It is difficult  to understand what is trying to be said in most or all pieces placed in the conceptual art category. Take for example, “The Black Circle” (painted by Kasimir Malevich) is a unique painting, the simplicity makes it stand out but it is confusing and difficult to interpret. On the other hand, the art piece, “Fountain” created by Marcel Duchamp, is a small urinal with the words “R. Mutt 1917” painted on the side. While the piece could be considered beautiful to some people, the issue comes when trying to understand its meaning, its purpose is very unclear and it is extremely difficult to discover that purpose without prior knowledge.

Conceptual art is complicated and can be well executed, however, most pieces are poorly made, complete nonsense, or both. This brings up the prices of these pieces, which are each outrageous. Take for example, the painting, “No. 6” (painted by Mark Rothko), is a tall piece with a very simple design, it is interesting but not significant yet, it is worth $186 million. Another example would be the painting, “Number 17A”, painted by Jackson Pollock, which is a mess of paint with no clear sense or meaning whatsoever. This piece could sell for $200 million. The most expensive of them however is the painting “Interchange” ( by Willem de Kooning), a

mostly white canvas with a few thick lines as well as red, yellow and on occasion blue streaks of paint. This painting is worth $300 million. 

There is also difficulty with conceptual art’s subversiveness. This is said in reference to the piece, “Fountain” again. Even though it was strange and hard to find, the piece actually had a purpose to challenge originality, showing that it was not only original art that could and should become world famous. The famed arts show a person’s unique vision of something, causing people to change perspectives and even interpret the world differently, even an entire style could be famously unique to one person like Vincent Van Gogh. On the other hand, One can even take inspiration from another artist’s work. The idea of a challenge against originality perhaps indicates a push towards conceptual art being the future of famed art, forcing traditional methods under the rug. This seems to be backed up by the growing popularity and mass of modern art exhibits and even entire museums. Moreover, should conceptual art be the main future of art? Heavens no. 

About the Contributor