"Just because you call it conceptual art doesn't make it Art."

Lots of great art writing in the New York Times in the last few days that highlights some issues that continue to vex the contemporary art world.

First, a report on the heated discussion about the New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC mounting an exhibit of the impressive collection of one of its board members Dakis Joannou.

One side:

“Maybe it is a fantastic collection, but the museum is a public trust: nonprofit, tax exempt and government supported,” said Noah Kupferman, a former specialist at Sotheby’s who teaches a course called Fine Art as a Financial Asset at New York University. “It is supposed to be an independent arbiter of taste and art-historical value. It is not supposed to surrender itself to a trustee and donor whose collection stands to be enhanced in value by a major museum show.”

The other side:

As the New Museum sees it, exhibiting Mr. Joannou’s collection, which has never been shown in the United States, is a gift to the public, providing a creative model for public-private partnerships in difficult economic times.

As much as I want to see the Joannou collection, my main concern among several is that this kind of prestigious museum show significantly and artificially enhances the short-term financial value of the art being shown before the art has proven to deserve the value that is given. There are many reasons why inflated value is a problem, but as I mentioned in yesterday's post, I worry that this somehow thwarts potential art lovers from becoming collectors because they think they can't afford to become collectors.

More on these wranglings from Modern Art Notes HERE.

Next, art critic Roberta Smith has this to say about the Whitney Museum's exhibit of Roni Horn's art:

Ms. Horn’s work has both benefited and suffered from being what might be called “curators’ art.” Curators’ art is indisputably, even innocuously, elegant — with clear roots in Minimal and Conceptual Art and not much else. It tends to be profusely appreciated by a hermetic few, curators, artists and theorists, who fetishize its refinements and often take its creators pretty much at their word. Ms. Horn has always had a lot to say about what her work means and how it is to be viewed, and some of it is quite interesting, but artists don’t own the meaning of their artworks.

A lively discussion on Ed Winkleman's blog ensued over that paragraph!  I especially liked "George's" comment: "Just because someone calls something 'conceptual art' doesn't make it Art, and the same is true for the formalists."  Hear hear!