# Conceptual Art, Ideas, and Ontology **Abstract:** Peter Goldie and Elisabeth Schellekens have recently articulated the Idea Idea, the thesis that “in conceptual art, there is no physical medium: the medium is the idea.” But what is an idea, and in the case of works such as Duchamp’s Fountain, how does the idea relate to the urinal? In answering these questions, it becomes apparent that the Idea Idea should be rejected. After showing this, I offer a new ontology of conceptual art, according to which such artworks are not ideas but artifacts imbued with ideas. After defending this view from objections, I briefly discuss some implications it has for the ontology of art in general. Even a cursory glance at literature on conceptual art—including commentaries by conceptual artists, art theorists, art historians, and philosophers of art alike—reveals a general consensus that such art has something to do with ideas.1 Lucy Lippard and John Chandler discuss at length the “dematerialization of the artwork” that has happened alongside an increasing focus on the nonperceptual idea, with Lippard elsewhere chronicling this focus in great detail.2 Sol LeWitt tells us that the idea “is the most important aspect of the work” and that “conceptual art is only good when the idea is good.”3 Timothy Binkley suggests that, with conceptual art, “to know the art is to know the idea,” and Joseph Kosuth goes as far as to say that “the ‘art idea’ (or ‘work’) and art are the same.”4 With conceptual art, Paul Wood seems right: “the idea is king.”5 Peter G **Authors:** [[Cray]]