"At its worst conceptual art in Britain was as doctrinaire and stultifying an influence on young minds as anything else, badly taught. Working one’s way through these contradictory approaches as an art student in the early 1970s was difficult and confusing – you were constantly up against the problem of intractable differences and impossible choices. We muddled through."
Sure we did and then threw the whole pile of pretentious meaningless twaddle into the bin whence it came with it's supporting specious continental philosophy in favour of empiricism. You know where you are with empirical evidence.
One thing remains that is vividly illustrated here, there is not one lasting, significant piece of work to emerge from the entire 1960's rehashed heap of Neo-Dada. Not even a one that says anything visually significant about the human condition.
Searle concludes: "
"At best, all art is conceptual, and all exists in a political context. Which doesn’t mean it has to be framed in an exhibition as bleak and pleasureless as this."
Then there has been new effortless promotion of the usual suspects. Elizabeth Fullerton in the Guardian of 16th April writes two pages of hype for her book "The story of Brit Art" explaining the role Charles Saatchi played in their creation and promotion. She finishes the article with this : “If you talk about pop art and minimalism, abstract expressionism, and then you look at the time frame, what’s really shocking is it was five, six, seven years and then that moment is over,” says Schubert. “What’s extraordinary about this one is that it carried on for the longest time. It feels like nothing has taken its place. Now that’s an odd phenomenon.”
Really, a very predictable outcome? One wonders what could cap the YBA movement in tastelessness? All conceptual arts progress seems blocked by the Chapman bros Hell.