The 1960s marked the period when art and its tools were re-interrogated and alternative quests emerged one after the other. This wasa period of ideas informed by public dissidence. At the same time, this period denotes the years of linguistic and stylistic conflict among concurrent ideas or movements such as abstract expressionism, pop art, minimal art and conceptual art. Conceptual Art, which questions the link art forms with the object, is the leading approach among such postulates and practices. With its objectless and text-based understanding of art, it seeks to disrupt the link between art and popular culture. In a way, this approach can be conceptualized as objectless art. It aims to form a connection between language, mind and image. Postmodernism—pregnant with obscure narratives—and its intrinsic art practices, whose boundaries cannot be clearly drawn, took off in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the multi-layered and abrasive structure of postmodernism came to be experienced not only conceptually, but also physically in the face of globalization, which grew increasingly visible during this period. Neo-conceptualism, the focus of this study, embodies the characteristics of this period. As a style, a language and a tool, it opens the way for intertwined narratives of the past. While Conceptual Art concentrates on its internal problems, Neo-Conceptualism starts to use all the forms rejected by Conceptual Art. Some artists incorporate this re-usage into their art practices in the form of copying or appropriation. Sometimes, an artist re-displays another artist’s work by simply marking her own signature or by making small changes on that work. A structure becomes evident in which the original, the copy and kitsch are coiled together and become difficult to distinguish. This study aims to contribute to the research that seeks to understand the artists who have been influential in Neo-Conceptualism and its understanding of art.

Keywords: Neo-conceptualism, art, object, conceptual,postmodernism