There is something getting more and more perplexing as my study of art and architecture continues. There are people who are trying very hard to make something seem elusive yet shallow. I know enough of your techniques, I know your creative processes, and I understand your intentions, well done, quite interesting (tricky) concept, etc., but I don't understand your origins, and I don't understand your... 'core logic'... or 'soul'.
If we're making something 'conceptual' for making conceptual, is it conceptual any more? Shouldn't conceptual art come natural?
When I look at Duchamp, I am more interested in his life, rather than his art. His life is art. well, 'conceptual art' is just a term tossed in the 60's anyway.
If I am not grown up to think about those perplexing matter, why bother? I will reach those matter when I need to. The key is not
what to think, the key is
how to think.
Subtlety is beauty, elusion doesnt necessarily mean subtlety. If the art is meant to be so elusive, so deep inside, please, it is yours, don't share it. It is extremely contradictart not ambivalent to show your inner feelings that are supposed to be elusive and supposed to be locked up.
and so... why do sites like these or galleries or museums exist...?
Arent we living in a huge set of contradictions?
