conceptual art and improvisation

["luca" <lucafeed@tin.it>]

Matthias wrote:
> There is a big gap though, between "anything is ok" and "this just came
out"
this is the real problem in improvisation; something which involves taste,
sense of measure, and to understand the border between the things that are
having sense for the people who is playing and the ones that can have
something to say to the ones who listen.
Sometimes (mostly in its early days) improvisation followed the idea of the
"perfoming art", very near to the visual/concrete installations.
This was having a strong cultural sense in the sixties.
I just visited the Venice's Biennale of contemporary art and I have been
discussing with my girlfriend (who is a sculptist and more) about the
sense/use of conceptual arts in our days.
So many installations did really not come out; just the clear sense of the
urgence of "making something new" and (sometimes) a few words that were
trying to give the installation a conceptual reason.
We agreed that the ones that were emotionally powerful were the ones that
didn't need anyone read the conceptual notes behind them.
The concept came out very clear from themself.
I love abstract art ( I think the way I play is abstract) and I agree with
Kandisky when he said that the figurative art expresses the image of
something real on which your memory can apply your remembers and
past/dreamed emotions; he described abstraction in art saying that it goes
deeper, forcing people to explore their inside with great humilty while
facing a representation that has no objective sense.
luca