In 1989, French conceptual artist Claude Closky released "The first thousand numbers classified in alphabetical order," a piece of conceptual writing that seems pointlessly absurd on the surface. It is absurd, of course, but it is definitely not pointless. ↴
In 1964, Arthur Koestler coined “bisociation” to “make a distinction between the routine skills of thinking on a single ‘plane’ and the creative act, which always operates on more than one plane…a double-minded, transitory state of unstable equilibrium…” Translation below ↴
Contradiction is the artist's greatest tool. New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff defines humor this way: It’s a conflict of synergies – we mashup these things that don’t belong together that temporarily exist in our minds.
Don't confuse bisociation with synthesis (i.e. thesis + antithesis). Bisociation is more like thesis + peanut butter. In "The first thousand numbers," the resulting work isn't a synthesis of two mutually exclusive means of organizing: it mocks organization and categorization.
The beauty of art is that it can create an ineffable experience, so no true reconciliation of opposing ideas is necessary. Merely calling attention to the irreconcilable is enough. But conceptual art can die on the vine when it does this too well...
Duchamp's "Fountain" pitted quotidian objects against fine art. Now the piece is just a document of something that was once inconceivable. Recognition, respect, and emulation killed the contradiction. The same goes for Warhol's mass-produced celebrity portraits.
If you want to read (or skim) Closky's "The first thousand numbers..." you can go here: https://www.ubu.com/concept/Cl... #typefully