Jen writes: I finally made it to the Wattis yesterday to check out "General Ideas: Rethinking Conceptual Art, 1987 - 2005." I was struck by how perfectly this "idea" art fit into a gallery context -- almost as if it wouldn't have a life outside such an institution. As I wandered through the galleries I began to wonder about things like market forces, or other sorts of conditions, that might have caused the "Conceptual Art" of today to seem so different from the "dematerialized" art of the seventies. I can't say that Smithson's work was without its trace in the gallery, but here the work couldn't reference an equivalent to the Sprial Jetty or massive land pour.

Josh writes: When I looked at the show a few weeks ago, I wasn't really thinking of Smithson or any of the conceptual forefathers. I am not sure if it's even worth having a discussion about dematerialization, since it seems that everyone finds a way to sell something whether it's actual work or related ephemera- drawings, plans etc. This morning as I was lying in bed I found myself thinking about the show and how some of the works seemed like they were nothing more than ideas and other pieces actually go beyond being just an idea and actually make me lose sight of an artist trying to come up with a concept. Does that make sense?

Jen: Hold on! Dematerialized art is hardly non-existant today. The show seems to suggest a shift in what Conceptual Art is by its choices. However, I wonder why CCA would have just started a Social Practice department if art making was only about object making. I would argue that there are plenty of artists out there who are doing projects without selling ephemera.

Josh: I'm not saying that it's non-existent, but rather that many of the pioneers have managed to figure out a way to sell things related to their dematerialized practice. I just read that article on Rikrit in the New Yorker and it delves into how items from his performance/cooking pieces are now quite collectible. Imagine owning a wok with some crusty dried shrimp remnants. What a thrill. But let's get back to the show. What did you mean about the show suggesting a shift in what conceptual art is?

Jen: Rikrit is a good example of what this show is not about. The subtitle of this exhibition is "Rethinking Conceptual Art," which begs the question, what's different now? I think the shift that this show suggests is about where the core of the work exists. For me the "rethinking" relates to each of the artist's practice and what results from that. Almost all of the work in this exhibition was a complete story. You look at it, and you get it. I didn't have to wonder why I was staring at a wok with some dried shrimp remnants, only to later realize that actually that's not the "work." What was interesting was that this "Idea" show was comprised of gallery objects whose subject mattter might be based on an "idea." You know, conceptual art as subject matter. With the pieces in this show the loop was neatly closed. The work was made by the artist who was thinking about an idea, and placed in the gallery for my consumption. The experience of the work circulates in a very small space between gallery object and my eyes/brain a mere couple feet away. This made me question the premise of this show. It made me wonder how "conceptualism," which I have always associated with various experiential and non-object based art practices, is now being framed as a practice that maybe only references these ideas in subject matter.

Josh: Well put, but I have to confess that when I go look at work I'm rarely, if ever thinking about historical context and antecedents. Sure, occasionally I will see a piece and think to myself, "didn't so and so do a project like that 20 years ago." What I'm looking for are interesting works. I guess if a curator has an overarching aim of presenting work that fits within a theme then that could justify the inclusion of works that aren't independently interesting. What pieces did you find interesting?

Jen: If I am free to love the work and off duty from trying to bind it to the show's supposed theme, I'd say it's pretty easy to list off a bunch of interesting pieces. How could you not love the Andrea Fraser video "Little Frank and His Carp?" It was hilarious to see her 'making love' to a column in the Guggenheim Bilbao. Not to beat a dead horse, but how weirdly perfect was it that one of the first pieces you encounter upon entering the gallery is Francis Alys's video, "The Paradox of Praxis: sometimes making something leads to nothing." That's a pretty bold opening remark. Anyway, I really enjoyed encountering so much humour. I really liked the fake obituaries by Adam McEwen and "The Bible from Memory" by Emma Kay. What did you think of the show?

Josh: I thought there were hits and misses. I enjoyed the video where the guy kicks the ice until it dissolves. Rob Pruitt's list of art ideas was amusing and kind of pithy as it poked fun of lots of different types of projects. I wasn't quite sure why he put it in Snoop's vernacular. Someone later told me that Mr. Pruitt is African American, but that still doesn't necessarily explain the choice to me. I'm with you on Andrea Fraser. That Liam Gillick piece I don't get at all and in fact, the other day I was riding an escalator at Old Navy and I noticed a piece overhead very similar to his colored panels. Perhaps he was aping Old Navy, or could it have been the other way around. The Jennifer Bornstein piece is confounding. What's interesting about that?

Jen: Earlier in this conversation you mentioned that certain pieces in the exhibition actually go beyond being just an idea and actually make you lose sight of an artist trying to come up with a concept. I am curious what you meant by that?

Josh: I was thinking about pieces like that Palestinian artist who used surveillance cameras (not sure if they were existing cameras), and Jennifer Bornstein's project. I just really couldn't get beyond the artist's ideas. In other words, I found myself not thinking about various issues, but rather, "the artist was trying to do xyz..." Does that make sense?

Jen: Yes, that makes sense. So which projects do you think got beyond the idea. How did that function for you? For the "successful" pieces, what did it make you think about? Funny, I thought you'd like the surveillance camera piece by Emily Jacir. I was sort of immediately turned off by the whole web-cam thing, but then as I read through the text for each day I started getting drawn into the narrative. It made me want to read her diary or correspond with her. I loved her entry near the end of the piece that read: "Sometimes it is best to stop something before it reaches its inevitable conclustion." By the way, I was hoping to somehow reference that right at the end of our converstaion.

Josh: Jen, Well it looks like your hope has been fulfilled. How about we call it a day? Can we come back to it? I feel like I'm running out of steam in a strange way.

(Several days pass...)

Josh: Jen, I put this conversation down for a spell and now I'm trying to figure out how to pick it back up again. Hmm. Can we go back to Jennifer Bornstein, if I admit that I didn't read the text that accompanied those surveillance cam photos?

Jen: Sure, we can go back. It's interesting though that you were not drawn into the webcam piece. The sensibility kind of reminded me of what you do in your work. Or maybe it reminded me of Sophie Calle, and that reminded me of you. Anyway, what were you thinking about the Jennifer Bornstein piece?

Josh: I am not the most patient viewer and visually the webcam photos were not so arresting. Was the text on the photos themselves or on the wall? I now wished I would have looked closer. In regards to Jennifer B., I guess I just don't understand why that is in the show. Perhaps it fits within the framework of the show, but it just doesn't grab me in anyway. It doesn't make me think about much other than an artist thinking, "Hmm, I look kind of boyish, maybe I'll take some photos of myself with boys."

Jen: Yeah, I agree that it wasn't the most engaging piece in the show. I am curious to hear about a piece that you were drawn to....or did you think the show was a complete disaster?

Josh: Wait, let's not move on yet, even though this conversation is growing by the letter. So how does a piece like the photos with boy basketball players make it into the show if it's not so interesting? And I hardly think the show was a complete disaster. As I said before, there were hits and misses. It might be a futile viewing premise to hope for all hits. This is all subjective is it not?

Jen: I don't think I'm the best person to defend the curator's choice to include the Jennifer Bornstein work. I could probably come up with some sort of half-baked idea about why the work is included. By including it in this show with other work that supposedly rethinks Conceptual Art, the curator had some connection in mind. But unfortunately it seems that the connection isn't quite there for you nor me. It seems like you are really itching to say something here....something beyond asking what I think... Do tell.

Josh: Ok, maybe I have been dancing around this. But it feels like the Jennifer B. piece is included because she's in the dialogue, swims in certain circles etc. Years ago, when I first started making work and had not had any art education, I used to get into these conversations with a friend who was a curator at a pretty reputable space in Seattle. I was constantly in search of "interesting" works. I didn't know anything about historical antecedents and what anyone else was doing. I only wanted to see and do compelling projects. An MFA and nine or so years immersed in the art world, I'm after the same thing.

Jen: So, are you saying that her work isn't interesting? Maybe it's just that this context isn't the best match?!? It seems that you might be suggesting that this show is really more of a "who's who" of that artworld and that the objects were not carefully considered. I keep wanting to make this conversation be a critique that is all inclusive and that says something about what the curator is attempting to say.

Josh: I don't find her work interesting. I wouldn't go as far as saying the show is a "who's who," but rather that she is enough of someone to be included. My mention of myself in years past looking rather naively for things to be interesting was meant to illustrate the fact that I often have a hard time considering the curators aims and instead I find myself simply looking for compelling works. We have typed a lot of words. Do you think we have said much?

Jen: I think we've said as much as we can for now. Excuse the repeated reference, but I'd say that this conversation has come to its inevitable conclustion!