How does art differ from commentary?
Or a better question would be "how do you see the role of art?" Or "why do people make art"
The idea behind some conceptual art is that the only thing that designates a "work of art" is how we approach it. The intentionality. So whereas a toilet in its proper place is nothing significant and toilet in the specialized place we call a "gallery" suddenly becomes something to evaluate. And so while that toilet isn't touching you aesthetically it is making you think about something: what do I accept as art.
Then there is conceptual work like baldessarri's type paintings. Done by a sign painter, black text on canvas. One that says " everything has been purged from this painting but art, no ideas have entered this work". That work also confronts the idea of what makes art by stripping away everything but thought or intentionality behind it. Which I think speaks to the idea is art as a universal human action that becomes sort of standardized by various cultures based on various thing like media available, cultural attitudes ect.
I think that work would define art as "intentional aesthetic creation". Which you could still judge as good or bad or somewhere in between. (I.e a child art or a Picasso would still be art ven if you thought it wasn't good, because it was an intentional aesthetic creation.
And then performance art could be argued to move to a point where an artist is designing an "experience". Art beyond the physical to an aesthetic that is very connected to time and changes ever occasion it's presented. And the action might not be difficult to replicate but it's doesn't take away the intentionality of the action. Marina abromovic I think has some of the most powerful performances I've seen. Specifically one where she put different objects in a room and passively let people do whatever they wanted to her. (Roses,feathers,a gun, paper, scissors). People at first were timid but some eventually pricked her and cut off her clothing, pointed the gun at her took it away. Which is a really interesting result of goin people power. But the whole thin stems from her design the experience, the space the limits, the included objects and her personal endurance.
I would argue that those works are important because they confront our consciousness more than playing on our emotions, and that is where art can be very powerful, in the transmission of ideas.
But basically easing the question is art a series of objects or is art an action or is art an intention ect.
You make a lot of good points here and I don't entirely disagree with what you're getting at. I just approach the issue from the Fi perspective, which is to look at what 'doesn't feel like art' and work backwards from there. With this sort of topic, I'm more comfortable eliminating things that don't work (again, IMO), whereas you are looking for an argument to actively prove things.
For me, an interesting idea in the form of visual commentary isn't enough to be considered art. I think art must appeal to the emotions because otherwise it creates a slippery slope where too many other forms of communication can be included. A news article may be written with beautiful and elegant prose; it might convince us to see the world differently and make us question what we think of ourselves those around us. But it's not art. It's primarily appealing to the intellect. It's informative and/or persuasive (although most journalists would disapprove of the use of persuasion, as they are expected to relate objective truth, free from partiality - problematic as that idea is).
I see Conceptual Art as not remarkably different from an article or essay; like you said, "the transmission of ideas". Of course, great art often contains an element of that as well, but it takes a backseat to the immediate aesthetic response.
As for intention, effort and skill, I remember an 'artwork' that won an award in NZ a few years back. Each year the winner of this award would then go on to represent NZ in an international art exhibition and every year something very controversial won. This one year, a pile of rubbish won - literally. Someone had taken a bin and turned it upside down and emptied out the contents. While the contents could potentially be of interest (they could reflect modern life and people's choices etc), it's still just a pile of upturned rubbish. The 'artist' made no effort to create it. It didn't require skill or intention. It had no aesthetic quality. It's only value was in what you choose to see in it. There was an outcry among the public and more significantly, by the art community. I remember one artist on the news basically saying, "if this is considered art, I don't know why I the hell I bother spending endless hours toiling away at my own work".
The point is, if you make art appreciation too subjective (which as you say, is, in part, the goal of Conceptual Art) you risk undermining the value of art altogether. If it is acceptable for the idea to take precedence over the aesthetics, where does that leave artwork that requires real skill to accomplish? - something that has been rendered over time with love and attention. In doing so, you even undermine the value of Beauty itself.
To me, idea based art is a cold, hard thing - like concrete and steel. It's like designing and constructing a building purely for practicality. It might achieve it's goal, but you can't delight in basic functionality. That would be like celebrating mediocrity. And you certainly can't hold that building in the same esteem as those that are both functional
and aesthetically pleasing - buildings that inspire awe and wonder, intrigue and surprise, that
move and impact you.
Conceptual Art might tell me something, but generally my response is, "who cares?". The idea itself isn't sufficient; I need to care about it too. I need to feel something to appreciate it.