Seth M - Response 3

This article was an excellent way to explain the intricacies behind conceptual art and the necessity of intention in every move and decision the artist makes. As LeWitt says towards the end of the reading, the article merely expresses his thoughts at that specific time as a conceptual artists and they definitely can not be said to apply to everyone. However, I did find that most of what he said to be very true and, if applied towards the genre as a whole, has me giving a lot more respect to conceptual artists. The way he describes the importance of size, position, gallery space, viewer height, etc. makes you really think about what it really means to create a gallery piece. We experienced a bit of this first hand in our critique last week, but coming from a professional, experienced, artist it's a bit inspiring to see how big of a part the gallery space plays in their roles as creators. I didn't quite agree with his stance on architecture, I don't think he meant to demean it as an art form, but it definitely came off that way. I believe the conceptual art plays a huge part in modern architecture, design, and the continuous striving to do something different that often pushes architects to create brilliant buildings. But as I said, I don't believe it was his intention to dismiss that; however, he aimed to point out the trial and errors of non-functional art in a gallery space. LeWitt's talk of different mediums, media, and tools adds up brilliantly at the end with, "Conceptual art is only good when the idea is good." It's humorous, though there is definitely some kind of truth to this.