In the past 10 years there has been an unprecedented resurgence of the conceptual in art. It is not so much that it spells the triumph of Conceptual art (from the mid 1960s to the early to mid 1970s) over other art movements, for today’s exploded discourse of art’s relationship to life and the public sphere, intermingled with the ferocious and frenetic forces of the market, render such a proposition meaningless. Rather, it demonstrates both the resilience and versatility of Conceptualism’s tactics and its capacity for inhabiting (and being inhabited by) a diversity of artistic practices—some paradoxically ‘unconceptual’,—that incites one to return to and rethink the original instance and the work it produced. A number of critics and historians have done exactly this in books and commentaries that attempt to track its legacy and rethink its objectives. That so many artworks incorporate conceptualist elements and approaches today is somewhat paradoxical given the failure of some aspects of Conceptual art’s program, namely its inability to reach a wider lay audience and to effectively transform the institutional apparatus of art. Nevertheless, that form of art along with the more loosely constituted and immaterial activities of Fluxus in the 60s and 70s questioned the institutional apparatus of art in an unprecedented way and offered alternative structures for its existence in society. It also unsettled the hegemony of visuality opening up the field to non optical forms of art.

There are many reasons that can explain why so many artists are embracing Conceptualism today or at least some of its strategies. Among them is the indisputable criticality at the heart of Conceptual art. The demands it made on conventional notions of authorship, reception and objecthood have given it a particular status in the art world and caused many artists to want to emulate it, to integrate some elements in their practice, or work against it. Its use of information based material before information technologies had totally permeated our lives has created a referential framework of great appeal to artists seeking ways to make ‘work’ in an economy of immaterial labor. Another, but by no means last point of interest, is its economy of means that has conferred upon it great adaptability—its ability through an apparently simple apparatus, process or action to unfold underlying complexities.

Of course, nothing comes back in the same form and Conceptualism is a much broader and varied category than the historical instance of Conceptual art. In fact, the inclusiveness of the former, inflected as it now is with feminism, postcolonialism, postmodernism, the relational, the new temporality of the cinematic and the sonorous has had a beneficial effect on the rethinking of the latter, opening up the borders of its exclusiveness. This opening also traverses all the pieces presented in Conceptual Filiations; all of which work ‘with’ Conceptualism. In many cases these artworks reference directly, in the form of an apparent remake (Clément / Michael Snow; Mastroiacovo / William Wegman, Sol LeWitt, Dan Graham, Mel Bochner; Olson / David Askevold; Stankievech / Bruce Nauman,) or indirectly (Pavlov / Nauman) or by quoting (Moppett / Michael Asher, Ed Ruscha) an earlier concept or process based work. Some such as Olson, Stankievech and Wang have no such connections, but are nevertheless situated in that lineage. Finally, Moppett inserts direct quotes in an ensemble that appears to negate the basic principles that governed the quoted works’s realization. The reinvestment, the quoting and the allusions that are taking place in Conceptual Filiations point to the enduring effectiveness of the conceptual mode in exposing basic problematics in art. But a closer look also reveals contradictions, deviations or mutations of the conceptual that form a basis for new critical possibilities.

– Michèle Thériault, Curator


The Leonard & Bina Ellen Art Gallery’s contemporary exhibition program is supported by the Canada Council for the Arts.