Ask Question
26 March, 19:37

Explain why some critics explain conceptual art as an attack on the economics of art.

+3
Answers (1)
  1. 26 March, 20:07
    0
    Bility were all irrelevant standards by which art was usually judged. So drastically simplified, it might seem to many people that what passes for Conceptual art is not in fact "art" at all, much as Jackson Pollock's "drip" paintings, or Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes (1964), seemed to contradict what previously had passed for art. But it is important to understand Conceptual art in a succession of avant-garde movements (Cubism, Dada, Abstract Expressionism, Pop, etc.) that succeeded in self-consciously expanding the boundaries of art. Conceptualists put themselves at the extreme end of this avant-garde tradition. In truth, it is irrelevant whether this extremely intellectual kind of art matches one's personal views of what art should be, because the fact remains that Conceptual artists successfully redefine the concept of a work of art to the extent that their efforts are widely accepted as art by
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question 👍 “Explain why some critics explain conceptual art as an attack on the economics of art. ...” in 📗 Arts if the answers seem to be not correct or there’s no answer. Try a smart search to find answers to similar questions.
Search for Other Answers