>>7692878
>>7693056
>people who strongly hold this view always fixate on the most famously "bad" examples
That example is one of the most highly lauded and praised pieces in the movement, as well as one of the most well known to the point it's taught in schools - what better example could I have had? An Oak Tree? R Mutt's Fountain? One and Three Chairs?

>"No no, Conceptual Art is actually great, you just need to research it and look at good examples!"
Secondly, I have seen enough of this type of work to form such an opinion, but if you're so confident conceptual art can be great, show me an example YOU think is exemplary; I'll probably still hate it - I won't be mean about it, I just doubt there's a piece of conceptual art that is so good that it'd shift my views on the movement.

Though I will concede that I likely hate this type of art work because I'm not seeing it in the original context of when it was fresh and unique, and challenging people's perceptions of art - I would have likely found The Fountain to be a fantastic riot had I seen it when it was originally released in that context.
However, I AM seeing these works in the later (modern) context that they're tired, overdone, lazy and hackneyed. They don't challenge anything, they just takes up space that could have been given to something actually worth said space (at the very least).

Thirdly, have either of you thought a subjective opinion that you disagree with doesn't need to be changed? I can hate a type of art, have my valid reasons for doing so, and you can completely disagree with me. It's a wide world guys.
On that note, conceptual art is antithetical to my definition of what art (in part) is; a display of skill. Placing the meaning before the craft is placing the cart before the horse. The Cart and its contents are important, but the horse shouldn't be ignored and neglected for it.