| dc.description.abstract | In this thesis, the transformations of early conceptual art in the 1970s will be our core concern. But it requires us to go back to its early stages and reexamine its aesthetic appeals. If the legacies of early conceptual art did become the fundamental ground of contemporary art, then we must answer these questions: how did it end? Is it possible that those strong convictions once held by its believers now become what we resent desperately? Or, is it possible that those it once seek to destroy now becomes what we embrace wholeheartedly? How did its discourses lose their critical power? And how did its aesthetic ideas collapse? Or on the contrary, if early conceptual art didn’t end but was only transformed or continued in the form of diaspora, then how do we remark on this whole process? More importantly, what led to its diaspora or transformation? How do we grasp and interpret it? In the past three or four decades, there already have been several narratives proposed by many theoreticians and philosophers to interpret the art history from 70s to what is happening now, such as “modern vs. postmodern,” “conceptual art vs. post-conceptual art,” and “avant-garde vs. new avant-garde.” Can these narratives assist us in tracing the contexts of conceptual art after 70s? Or, is there any art that still preserves the original meanings of conceptual art? I will try to clarify the critical consciousness of early conceptual art through the discussion of two of its most important strategic approaches: (1) the analytic and philosophical approach, and (2) the institutional approach. By systematically examining and reviewing those related theories, documents and texts, I will verify the validities of these two approaches, explore the meanings behind them, and finally comment on their developments after 70s. The investigations of these two approaches interdependently constitute the arguments in this thesis that attempts to answer the end, diaspora or transformation of early conceptual art. | en_US |