Keith Morant, New Zealand, 2010-12-14: I was living and painting in London in the 1960s when the first wave of ‘Conceptual Art’ was thrust upon the gallery scene. I remember going to the Tate gallery to view the pile of house-bricks that had been placed on its floor by American Artist Carl Andre. We then learned of Sol LeWitt and his minimalist structures and Robert Ryman with his white monochrome paintings, not to mention other followers of this new school like the Italian Mario Merz with his cloth and neon igloos and, of course, Donald Judd, with his banal but perfect industrial shelving. I also remember at this time seeing (at the Whitechapel gallery I think) a very young Gilbert and George, on a small stage, both painted gold and miming songs together.

Keith Morant has been a painter for over forty years and while he had some initial training, he has always followed his own path of non-compromising abstraction. He lives and works in New Zealand but travels regularly to exhibit in America and Europe. Recent years have seen his work impact on the global art scene and he has been honoured with many International art awards. - http://keithmorant.com

Keith Morant, New Zealand, in response to David Novak, 2010-12-19:

TWO BRAINS

I totally agree with you David in that there cannot be any tension between minimalism and abstract expressionism as they are indeed unique self-standing entities. However, we might also regard them as part and parcel of one singular entity. After all, all such expression comes from the same source – the human brain.

In considering this question regarding the ‘conceptual’ in art as opposed to the ‘lyrical’ I would like to put forward a few words that may give a somewhat different and hopefully constructive way of viewing this phenomena. The way I see it, when all is considered, there is a much simpler and more direct approach to this (seemingly disparate) development of human expression.

Scientists and philosophers have always acknowledged that there are two ways in which the human knows and reacts to the external world; through the intellect or the emotions; through logical analysis or through metaphorical synthesis. Dichotomous terms abound like rational or poetic, abstract or concrete, scientific or imaginative. This often generates a sense of division, where one part of the thinking process says that it is logical to do this, while another part, the emotional response, feels it would be better to do that.

Scientific analysis and medical progress has shown that our brains are, in fact, made up of two distinctly different information-processing centres. At first glance the two hemispheres of the human brain look like mirror images of each other, but on closer examination we find many asymmetries. Measurements made in autopsies reveal that the left hemisphere is almost always larger than the right and carries many short neural fibres that provide rich interconnections within a limited area of the brain, while the right hemisphere carries many long neural fibres that connect widely separate areas of the brain.

In 1861 the French physician Paul Broca examined the brain of a patient who had suffered a speech loss, and he found that an area of the left-brain had suffered damage. This area of the frontal lobe (now known as Broca’s area) is the main center of speech. The same area in the right brain, if damaged, does not result in speech impairment. The areas involved in understanding speech and the abilities to read and write are also usually located in the left hemisphere. Thus, a person who suffers a stroke that damages the left hemisphere is more likely to show language impairment than one whose damage is confined to the right hemisphere. A few left-handed people have speech centres located in the right hemisphere, but the great majority has language functions in the left hemisphere (as with right-handed individuals).

The two major modes of human brain-hemisphere function were first described by the eminent psychobiologist Roger W. Sperry in his Nobel Prize winning work of the late nineteen fifties. He shows that the right and left hemispheres of the human brain use contrasting methods to process information. Both thinking methods are involved in high level cognitive functioning but each brain specializes in its own style of thinking and each has its own special capabilities. The two modes are able to work in a cooperative and complementary way while at the same time retaining their individual styles of thinking.

However, the specialization of the isolated hemispheres should not be overstated; the right half of the brain does have some rudimentary linguistic abilities. The two styles of thinking are fundamentally different and can cause each mode, in a sense, to view reality in its own way. Thus, in response to an event ‘out there’ one brain half or the other may react first by overriding and suppressing the conscious awareness of its counterpart. Anxiety and mental problems are often caused where the two reactions have differing and conflicting responses to the same event.

The left hemisphere specializes in verbal, logical and analytical thinking. Naming and categorizing are among its main functions. It excels in symbolic abstraction, speech, reading, writing and arithmetic. In general its system of thought is linear; first things first - second things second. It tends to rely on general rules to reduce experience to concepts that are compatible with its style of cognition. Its preference is for clear, sequential and logical thought that is uncomplicated by paradox or ambiguity. Western culture tends to emphasize left-brain thinking thus channeling complexity into logical and manageable terms, symbols and abstractions.

In contrast to the left-brain, the right hemisphere functions in a non-verbal manner, specializing in visual, spatial and perceptual information. Its style of processing is non-linear and non-sequential, relying instead on simultaneous processing of incoming information. It tends to function holistically by grasping the whole thing ‘all at once’. It seeks relationships between parts and establishes the way they fit together to form wholes. Its preferences are for perceiving information, searching for patterns and relationships, and establishing visual or aural fit in terms of order and coherence. It seems undaunted by complexity, ambiguity or paradox and, because of its quickness of non-verbal perception; right-brain thinking is, by definition, difficult to put into words.

The two modes of cognition, left brain and right brain, share and communicate their separate views of reality principally by means of a large cable of nerve fibres called the corpus callosum. This ganglion contains millions of neuropaths that interconnect the processes of the two hemispheres. Through this means the two views of reality are reconciled, thus preserving the sense of ‘oneness’ – the ‘I’ of a single identity.

Both major brain operations work concurrently and cooperatively on the same information or task received and both hemispheres contribute to a conclusion through its own special function. In most human activities any sense of difference or separateness between these brain functions is outside of human conscious awareness.

So, in the light of our subject, perhaps this can give a wider view, and hopefully room for alternative considerations of what is conceptual and what is not. As you say Saadi; (whatever is produced from whichever brain), we must accept the creators’ right to do it and define it as plastic art.

Keith Morant has been a painter for over forty years and while he had some initial training, he has always followed his own path of non-compromising abstraction. He lives and works in New Zealand but travels regularly to exhibit in America and Europe. Recent years have seen his work impact on the global art scene and he has been honoured with many International art awards. - http://keithmorant.com

Karl Maenz, Switzerland, in response to Keith Morant, 2010-12-19: Keith Morant's article clarifies for us the clinical discovery of how the two sides of our brains work. It also leads to the conclusion of different creative results. And consequently Keith follows David Novak's view that "there cannot be any tension between minimalism and abstract expressionism as they are indeed unique self-standing entities."

Clinically perhaps not, but this is about perception by the viewer. We've already seen there are people who "connect" with one style but not the other, and some who connect with both.

ZAMM is one of my favorite books. In his 1974 philosophical novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM), Robert M. Pirsig describes how some follow a "romantic", gestalt approach, and others the "classical". One sees mainly the overall, emotional, holistic; the other mainly its logical underpinnings, the detail. Two friends go on a motorcycle trip across the USA. One simply enjoys his new cycle, scenery and all, but has no understanding or interest in its workings. He can't replace a spark plug without the help of an expert. The other has gained a deep understanding of how his cycle works. He continually observes, analyzes and services his machine. His scenery consists mainly of points on the map. They are friends, but between them tension grows: they think and perceive differently. In the end, the novel is about the question "what is QUALITY" (QUALITY in capital letters). According to ZAMM, QUALITY is the ability and perception that includes both the "romantic" and the "classical" in equal measure. ZAMM postulates that society has become impoverished by polarization. Our heroes are either the super engineer or the super rock star. Pirsig's ideal man has QUALITY. Leonardo and Einstein had QUALITY.

It's obvious to me that peraps the main reason that some connect to Conceptual and Minimalist art - and others mainly to the Lyrical - is (apart from the important cultural influences) that their left, respectively their right brain sides dominate. And that few of us can appreciate both art movements with equal interest and liking.

A personal anecdote: The company where I worked for many years had acquired a competitor's product line with poor financial performance. The product was old, undifferentiated and exposed to much competition. We developed a strategy to improve profitability - in addition to necessary technical and cost improvements - by creating an image that the product was not old but changes had made it brand-new, unique and desirable, actually quite sexy. We promoted it with a new trademark, associated it with leading fashion icons, and marketed it along perceived preferences of lifestyle. The strategy worked miracles. For several years it differentiated us from competition and profits rose. It worked in the market place. But inside our company, it was difficult to explain the strategy. Our marketing people floated in the clouds with dreams of lifestyle and image without much interest in the technicalities of the product. Our engineers and perhaps most decision makers (in our science based company) were shaking their heads opposite the marketing approach. Also, it showed deep geographical and cultural differences in perception. It was “in”, “with it”, great and sexy in Europe, “immoral” in the USA south of Mason-Dixon, and aha-yasooo in Japan. Weren't we immorally seducing people by creating an "image"? After all, this was just another nylon. I used to walk with friends along the corridors at headquarters and stick virtual Post-Its on people's doors: Zen, Motorcycle, Motorcycle, Motorcycle, Zen, etc. The point is, few were capable to fully understand and appreciate both approaches as needed for "QUALITY", the detailed technical characteristics and the perceived image in one strategic package. But the results were good and we got away with it.

The above helps me to hopefully clarify why some of us appreciate one approach over the other, and only a few actually appreciate both. Our brains are either predominantly left side or right side, in only a few of us it's both in equal weight. Also, why the combination of both is more than the addition of its parts.

We may be in a semantic trap here, of what was meant by "field of tension between the two poles".

The thesis I had proposed (and still do) is this. The ability to have in the same work both approaches, creates in the viewer a "to and fro" that makes the work come alive. It's the "to and fro" between the intellectual concept and the romantic look or interpretation. This may not be intended or seen as such by the artist. The thing is how it is felt by the viewer. Take Astrid Fitzgerald's image "Constructions 314". It is rooted in the concept of philosophical geometry, in particular the Golden Mean Proportion. Isn't that left side brain stuff, "classical", the "motorcycle maintenance" in Pirsig's novel? Astrid's execution of the work, difficult to appreciate on a photo, is (to me) romantic, lyrical. The encaustic or other multi-layer painting gives it something mysterious, something "out of this world". So to me, the work has two strong sides, the conceptual and the lyrical in one. And although the two form one entity in her work, there is creative tension without which the work might be a cold scientific-philosophical statement or a warm decorative anecdote. As I perceive it, this work has QUALITY as proposed by Robert M. Pirsig.

Astrid Fitzgerald, USA, in response to David Novak, 2010-12-21: David does seem to have an argument with my opinion, even though he denies it. (Just echoing his introductory sentence.) I can’t possibly find the time to follow David’s long argument, but I stand by my opinion on current conceptual art, that it is banal and derivative. On the other hand, I’ve always liked Dada, Constructivism, Suprematism and similar movements, and still do.

Since we have no idea where anyone in this discussion group is “coming from,” I think it’s not useful to get personal, but rather stay with the topic of discussion. I do wish to add a clarification: a principle is not the same as a concept. I called the Golden Mean Ratio a principle for lack of a better word. But this amazing mathematical ratio is far more – it is simply ‘what is,’ least of all someone’s idea, opinion or belief. Derived from a point on a line in which the smaller segment is to the larger as the larger is to the whole, this ratio is considered to be the only possible creative duality within unity. This proportion, with its dynamic laws, is found not only in art and architectural designs from the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Taj Mahal and the painters of the Italian Renaissance, but also in nature itself and even, as recent research discovered, in the quantum world. (To read about it, click on “Golden Ratio and Science” on my website)

My work basically falls into the category of geometric abstraction and modernist aesthetic with a few early digressions into color-field and color-interaction paintings. I’ve stayed away from trends over the last thirty years, because I see very little of what I like in galleries and museums, and I can only do honest work by going within for inspiration.

Karl Maenz, Switzerland, in response to Astrid Fitzgerald, 2010-12-21: I agree with both your observations (Astrid Fitzgerald and David Novak) relative to Conceptual Art. To me, some of it seems "trash", and some of interest. But that's very personal, and I admit that above all art must be free, whether we personally like it or not.

Relative to the discussion about Astrid's work, I am grateful for Astrid's clarification. There can be no questioning of how Astrid defines her art. And I am sure it wasn't meant that way. However, I believe each observer has his/her interpretation, independent from what the artist had intended. So with all respect to Astrid's intent, I still perceive her art (in particular Constructions 314) as part Conceptual, part Lyrical, and therefore as a work of QUALITY in Persig's sense. I can see in her work the principle having equal importance as its execution, which gives it wonderful tension.

Mona Youssef, Canada, 2010-12-22: CA / conceptual art has been taking its place in our modern world of art as it has its own fans, buyers and lovers. CA is the COLLECTIVE ABBREVIATIONS created by an artist as a result of personal vision, perception, formation of thoughts and conception of what was perceived, felt and influenced from the surroundings. As we live in the speedy time (high tech, high touch) where there is a great lack of patience, affects art and that is why we see paintings done in few hours called CA! Having mentioned SURROUNDINGS, our lives style, atmosphere, societies expectations, living standers, life stress and medias influence have TREMENDOUS effect on art, art market, on artists observations and their creations. In another words, art regardless of its style, is produce of time changes and artist’s brain / vision collections. Presenting nature in a simple and young painting is avoidance of the actual splendor of nature with its complexity. It is also an expression of our new era that is falling apart with its values and standers.

Although, CA art has its own values yet, will NEVER replace LA / traditional art (namely realism). Visiting the Louvre or the national gallery in London and in Berlin, one must take the hat off when viewing our old masters. The misconception of realism that is a product of copying a photo is WORNG! LA, lyrical Art, traditional /realism require much more than copying what one sees. Rather, passionately, expressing what an artist observes, feels, appreciates and then focus on a theme in a new composition with a new subject while applying all the necessary elements such as light, shadows, proportions, perspective etc. What could be more beautiful than nature! Nature is so splendid than capturing it in one painting with few brush strokes. Realism is the true and the original vision of the creation. Through the fine details realism was born and the creation has stood clearly firm. What more artists can add to its exquisiteness! Neither should we subtract so much that art viewers would have to figure out what was meant in a painting! Probably, in this case, anyone can be an artist!

Although, I am a realist artist, yet, had the chance, several times, to jury international art exhibitions, have enjoyed and appreciated viewing different styles. If I was cornering the meaning of art whether CA or LA I would have not been able to appreciate and select verity of styles. So, art is art in the eyes of the beholder. Since we all are different, have different tastes, different perception of life, let us open our minds and hearts to what the true meaning of art is. To me art, regardless of the style, is a manifestation of love, loving the nature around us and the people we share our world with. Art reflects a wealth of cultural, history and identity as affirmation of man for it is a self-expression of how one perceives matters. In turn, art will work as a powerful tool and a silent International language that can convey messages to the world reflecting culture, history and civilization. This language can speak up, announce, express, make known, unify, bring together, support, encourage, share, care for, show compassion and kind feelings toward all. When we truly love what we do, we do it whole-souled and become professionals at it. In two words; Art is to LOVE. So whatever one feels intimate to, united with, influenced by, or even fall in love with a piece of art, then it is art to him / her. Artists paint what they feel and want. Viewers love, appreciate and buy what they like and want.

So let us have open minds, rich spirits and depth of understanding of what art really I, free from cornering it in any angle. I believe that whoever corner art has a personal likeness / intention but art is much more wide open as the universe is.“

Carol Rowling, Australia, 2010-12-22: These are a hard acts to follow and I don't have the literacy skills to debate the topics, but I will say this that in my art practice I follow my own instincts and my work is not always concerned with the finished product but with the process that came from the original conception, like creating work with a power tool and carving into canvas to create other dimensions, I find it exhilarating.

Tom Bluhm, Switzerland, 2010-12-23

Keith Morant, New Zealand, in responst to ann onymous, 2010-12-23: What a strange and naive statement!

To begin by citing Robert Hughes and telling you to read John Dewey, then telling you to "think for youselves without referring to quotes, theories or readings..." etc. seems to me just a little self-contradictory!

Such cursory, decisive and dismissive words on our subject implies great knowledge, as though he/she has already read and digested everything about it, and therefore can even determine its shelf-life and times of the onset of rigor mortis.

But - having a certain preoccupation with bathrooms and bathroom windows, telling you to expose yourself 'without titles' and then signing off with the most contrived title of all, seems to me, just a little bizzare, and not without a whiff of schizoid paranoia.

Good luck Tom (or Ann)!

David Novak, USA, 2010-12-23: Very lively debate going on here. Regardless of what side one takes, CA or LA, we all have to agree that all things art is personal. This is what we do as artists; personal. This is how we engage in the aesthetic experience as artist or audience. We are in charge of all our definitions visual or verbal. In order for a debate to be a success, we have to step into the stream and get wet.

All of us approach this argument, CA vs LA, from a personal position. This is how we defend what we do. I, however, plunge in and try to view both sides as entities aside from where I am. For example, I took the right brain left brain [great post here by Keith on this subject, kudos] test on line in 2004 [http://painting.about.com/od/inspiration/a/quiz-rightbrain.htm] and the results revealed that I am 65% right brained. Hmmmmmmm.

As an Abex painter, more or less, this does say something about how I approach CA vs LA. I like both. However, I have never made a purist Conceptual Art Work. Why bother? After all it is conceptual! And it can exist only in the mind too?????!!!! When I analyze what I have done over the years, I do both. Not unique by today's postmodern relationships to art making. To a purist, whichever side this may be, I can be a traitor to the cause. No. I am not a traitor. I am not an assassin. I am only looking at what is there; trying to make some sense of it. Open mind is good. To survive the mind has to be open. I place this statement at the bottom of all my emails: *The mind is like a parachute - it only works when it is open* This is my code.

So each of the participants in this current debate weight-in using themselves as the argument base. I don't think any of us are going to change our minds any time soon.

At least, tho, I appreciate reading the differences; feeling the differences. I appreciate being allowed to participate. This is healthy. This is good. Life is good. And the beat goes on.

Lets go make some art!

Olivia Alexander, Australia, 2010-12-30: Hi All, After having read through the writings and musings of my fellow artists and creators, (I got ‘lost’ on several occasions!) I thought I would contribute my thoughts on the original question. What are my views on Conceptual art and it’s place in today’s art world? I am no scholar, only a creative soul who passionately loves the amazing World of Art! I must admit CA doesn’t really do ‘it’ for me but it has, at times, given me cause to think, see outside the square and consider another’s viewpoint. To some, art must be a pretty landscape to hang on their wall. It seems at times to be like beauty; in the eye of the beholder. I honestly do not see CA in the same league as, perhaps, Painting or Sculpture but I believe it has it’s place, although it is not something I desire to explore in my own art practice. For me, I must be true to myself and paint and create what is in my heart, my experience and my ‘voice’. Interesting discussions though; time to get back in the studio! Kind regards, Olivia Alexander