I would be the first person to invite viewers to pursue the understanding of works of art by hearing about art from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  Yet I must admit that the artist cannot in any way be the authority, even when it comes to her own work.  There is no authority, because there is no person who understands every subtle experience in the making or the viewing of works of art.

While finding the works by Sol LeWitt seen here, I discovered a small section of writings by the artist in the back of a book of his work at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.  It has always fascinated me how so many art history books about living or recent artists do not include very much discussion by or with the artist about his or her own work.  It is strange how much smaller a role that artists play in the writing of art history, than that of the art historians and critics.  LeWitt begins, "The editor has written me that he is in favor of avoiding 'the notion that the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by a civilized critic.'  This should be good news to both artists and apes..." (Legg 166)

LeWitt goes on to discuss conceptual art at length, "Three dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact.  This physicality is its most obvious and expressive content.  Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions.  The physicality of a three-dimentional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent."  (Legg 167)  He seems to put great responsibility on the conceptual artist to attend to the contradiction between conception and perception, because one comes before the work, and the other comes after.  It sounds as if the art of conceptual art lies almost entirely in the "before" of the work, its conception, which exists within the mind of the artist.  LeWitt goes so far as to say "It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art.  Once it is out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work.  Different people will understand the same thing in a different way."  (Legg 166)  While the work is in his hands, however, the intent of the artist is enormous.

There is a frustrating feeling that in order to understand conceptual art, the viewer must be in the position of the artist.  Whenever I read the writings of an artist, I always respond as an artist myself, so that the prospect of being the conceiver of a work is more natural to me that that of the perceiver.  I wonder if the rift between conception and perception is largely the result of the vast majority of viwers being unable to perceive themselves as artists.  What a wonderful and applicable label us that of "artist" and what a shame it is that we do not all feel a part of this.
 

That's it!  --Alahna Roach