Symbolism in Conceptual Art by the female Artists_ The East and The West?

First, the question is misleading because the so called 'conceptual art' is neither conceptual or art. In most cases an object or objects are presented assuming that the viewer will attach to it some meaning. Of course, we cannot perceive ANYTHING without interpreting it according to our language, experience, emotional state and more. However, giving something a personal meaning does not make it 'conceptual'.

Second, art does not deal with objects but with visual symbols. Because 'conceptual art' has no symbol system, it is not art at all. Most people confuse between 'symbol' and 'sign'. True, in everyday usage of this concept 'symbol' this confusion is deeply entrenched but this hardly makes it valid. Simply put, the most important difference between 'symbol' and 'sign' is that all true symbols have systemic meaning, i.e, they exist only is vast abstract systems such as all natural languages and only figurative painting. On the other hand, 'signs' don't have this property and therefore no sign or combination of signs can qualify as true art. See my book ART VERSUS NONAT; Art out of mind.(amazon)

Third , the so called 'conceptual art' is not art at all but at best trivial design. See my book THE CONFUSION BETWEEN ART AND DESIGN; Brain-Tools versus Body-Tools. (amazon)

Fourth, because so-called 'conceptual art' is one of the forms of Fake Art, it does not matter who engages in this folly, males or females, in the east or west, north or south. Ignorance has no unique location.

Good luck,

Tsion Avital

@tsionavital I don't think that your answer is clear cut true. It is highly discussed in the field of art and design. Of course there is some art that has more to do with design (ever heard of bauhaus, russian constructivism? ), and design as well that goes a bit more in the field of art. Then there is the perception of how art is always seen from the western perspective, which is also very problematic. Seeing things in black and white isn't helping because this is an issue that needs to be discussed all the time. Art and design boarders emerged and seperated historically all the time.

Art can be conceptual, meaning that it had an overall idea and a context (not just that it is emotional, but maybe has implications on social constructs and so on), that has been followed through with a clear detactable method until the work has been finished. What the heck is fake art? Has nothing to do with what is conceptual. Maybe read some Boris Groys and e-flux journal, might be helpful.

Aleida Assmann has written a section about symbols in her book about Memoria (Book is called "Erinnerungsräume" in german).

I think symbols can be switched with the word metaphor. A symbol always has a cultural and historical link and the understanding and perception is dependable on these because it works like a form of language.

So it makes a difference if the art comes from the east or the west.

Questionnaire has some ambiguities, but I answered from my personal perspective, attached.

As I always remind readers whenever art history or theory is the topic, the new paradigm is that art, which in its earliest evolution is indistinguishable from symbolism and design, is in my view done over 2 million years of human evolution, and as my colleague Robert Bednarik has argued, at least a million plus years have strong evidence.