It seems fairly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tramway’s visual art programme is identified with a sort of neo-conceptualist tradition. It’s hard enough to define what art is, or to put it into any meaningful context, but to discern the importance or meaning of this apparent trend feels impossible.
Starting off with neo-conceptualism. What does it mean?
I suppose I use the word to describe a sort of art work- contemporary, and influenced by the Conceptualists proper, a defined group or movement that emerged in the late 1960s- which places more emphasis on the concept behind the work than the actual object itself. This can range from Jonathan Monk’s visual one-liners (his T1 show was a laugh riot, unless you had to go round twice) through to Ilana Halperin’s angular recreations of tectonic processes. There is no particular medium that the Neo-Conceptualists favour, although painting is generally excluded. The Scottish neo-conceptualists, whom Tramway has supported and respected, have a vague connection to the so-called yBAs (Emin, Hurst and co.). They have also had successes: Douglas Gordon, most notably, got a Turner Prize when the thing was turning hip.
In a way, the object doesn’t matter. The place where we’d usually expect the manifestation of “Art” isn’t that critical. The end product might be a video, a collection of sculptures or, as in the case of Donald Fagin, a rather nifty version of a Burn’s song in the reggae style. But the art-work is a key- at best the doorway- to an idea that the artist is considering.
There are certain patterns to the subjects. The nature of art is often under consideration, and the role of the artist is frequently discussed. The Scottish neo-conceptualists love their football- Roderick Buchanan equally loves to deny that he does- and the male artists share an almost aggressive masculinity- which is undermined by a dry wit and playfulness. Watching Douglas Gordon mess about on a BBC documentary, leading the presenter a merry chase and refusing to be pinned down on his art’s meaning (“if I had one thing to say, I’d be a politician or preacher”), it is hard to decide whether he is being loutish or charmingly reticent.
In some sense, I think that these neo-conceptualists see themselves as anti-artists. They certainly reject those media and genres that are most easily identified as art, like painting or anything figurative. They can be reticent to describe their work as art- Martin Creed stated of his Turner winning pieces that he didn’t call them art at all. This is probably just a trope, once used by every movement that calls itself avant-garde and getting tired after Dada and surrealism. Then again, public response supports their hypothesis.
There is also a slightly forced laziness, an aura of will-this-do? Monk often comes across as mannered in interviews, presenting himself as bemused and hip. The association with rock music goes beyond the odd title or reference. Most of the artists played in or hung out with bands, and the whole decadent posing smacks of the rock-god persona. This is the least attractive aspect of neo-conceptualism, stinking of arrogance and self-regard. It also relies heavily on the persona of the “artist”, suggesting that the artist has a special ability, a special taste, that their words and actions deserve attention. It is caught between the rejection of art and the retention of the artist’s status in the hierarchy.
In the end, the radical claims collapse, because the value of any piece- regardless of the price, or the hype, or the fashionability- comes down to the basic questions. Is the idea good, and has it been well executed? And like every movement, neo-conceptualism has its masters and charlatans.