Conceptual art either deconstructs existing concepts or constructs concepts that do not yet exist

Evidence

Haacke deconstructs: the fashionable word seems quite unavoidable in thinking of him (and recovers some of its original, strong, political, subversive meaning in his context). His art has a European culturepolitical corrosiveness; Gober’s is as American as the Shakers or Charles Ives, its absent community, its “invisible public” constituted out of readers of Emerson rather than of Adorno. I’m tempted to suggest that this form of conceptual art — for such it is — differs from its opposite number in that it constructs, not an already existing concept of the type that Haacke and others take to pieces, but rather the idea of a concept that does not yet exist. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 383

Categorization

• QUESTION: The distinction between ‘constructing a concept that does not yet exist’ vs ‘deconstructing an existing one’ invites investigation — can the former be falsified under a cultural-dominant thesis, or is it simply a different aesthetic?