All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually.

Making something new to look at is a futile and empty act if its only audience is the eyes.

All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually.

When objects are presented within the context of art (and until recently objects always have been used) they are as eligible for aesthetic consideration as are any objects in the world, and an aesthetic consideration of an object existing in the realm of art means that the object's existence or functioning in an art context is irrelevant to the aesthetic judgment.

I liked that the work itself was something other than simply what you saw It meant you could have an art work which was that idea of an art work, and its formal components weren't important.

Anything can be art. Art is the relations between relations, not the relations between objects.

I am only describing language, not explaining anything.