The danger of deciding that all conceptual art is crap is that you haven’t observed *all* conceptual art; that’s not humanly possible.
This is irrelevant. Not being able to observe every instance, doesn’t necessarily invalidate a general statement. A general characteristic of all conceptual art is the precedence of the concept over its artistic representation. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists oppose this in art.
Likewise, you don’t have to observe every 100m runner attempting to run in deep sea diving boots, to see that it is not a good idea.

Doesn’t that fall under the broad meaning of “prejudiced”?
No, the reason why is made very clear in the manifesto. We have given conceptual art much cosideration. It is not a prejudice. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists believe the concepts behind art are best kept behind the art, and that there is no artistic value in moving them to the front. Quite the opposite. It removes the core and soul of art, and adds nothing. It doesn’t even succeed in bringing the concept to the front, as the concepts behind art are illustrated perfectly well in other art anyway. Like a fusion.
The fundamental idea behind conceptual art is a failure. Subsequently, so is all conceptual art.

would you care to expound on what you think that intrinsic quality or qualities might be? – as in previous answer. Our view applies to all conceptual art, but is not a justified prejudice, as it isn’t a prejudice. We have not pre-judged conceptual art without consideration. It is just justified.
To consider the defintion of conceptual art to define it as non-art, is a legitimate view. Nothing prejudiced going on at all.

Is there not (at least potentially) a whole world of (at least potential) conceptual art beyond the insular Brit Art world with its names the Stuckists seem to hammer on again and again (Hirst, Emin, Tate, Saatchi, etc)?
Yes, our view of conceptual art applies beyond the Brit Art names we keep going on about. We pick on them, as we see them as main destroyers of the contemporary art scene.

Are the Stuckists really enemies of conceptual art, or are they rather the enemies of the ridiculousness of the current art establishment.
The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists are enemies of both.

Are the Turner Prize demonstrations by Stuckists not, themselves, conceptual art?
Anything could be called conceptual art. Duchamp himself made the link between the term ‘art’ and any action at all, in a BBC interview. (We think it was the BBC). Brushing your teeth could be called conceptual art. Martin Creed has come up with a few. We don’t consider these things art. The Stuckist Turner Prize demo is a fun day out. It isn’t a work of art.

Do the Other Muswell Hill Stuckists decline to participate in these demonstrations?
No, as above. In the same way we wouldn’t stop brushing our teeth. Just because we don’t consider something is art, doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do it. Not considering paying our taxes to be ‘art’, doesn’t get us out of doing it. The same point was made to us at the Oxford Union debating society, in 2009. It seems everything an artist does, whether it is an artwork or not, has to be considered by them to be some form of art. Otherwise they are a hypocrite if they oppose it being defined as art, whilst continuing to practice it. This is, of course, nonsense.

Would they decline if the demonstrations were widely regarded as conceptual art? How about if one person regarded them as conceptual art? What if that one person was Charles Thompson? Or ________________ (fill in any name you like here)?
No, we wouldn’t care. Again, the brushing teeth comparison applies. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists act on what they themselves think. We realise our views may not be shared by all within or outside Stuckism. For example, we consider photography and film to be hugely inferior to painting, yet there are Stuckist groups with members who predominantly use these methods. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists are an independent, self-directed group. We aren’t concerned with being widely regarded as correct.

finds a majority of Stuckist output (maybe about 80% of what I’ve seen) to be unengaging
* has noticed an increase in unengaging (even dreadful) work by Stuckists in the last few years (surely it is not surprising, if a movement embraces the term “daubing” and lets anyone with an email address start a local group, to see a certain amount of coattail-riding)
We also find the vast majority of art we have seen calling itself Stuckist, to be inferior to the best of Stuckism. However, we also find this true of other art movements. For example, Impressionist, Expressionist, Surrealist, Dada, Outsider Art. A minority of greats, surrounded by a majority of lesser artists. With time, the greats of each movement can be plucked out. On the whole, we consider art history to be quite good at plucking, and hope the same will happen with Stuckism. Stuckism is still going though, and has been so resisted by the art establishment, that it is yet to be properly recognised, let alone plucked.
The high ratio of lesser art to good, that applies to all art movements, is inevitably going to be true of Stuckism to an increasing, and larger extent. As you point out, anyone can start up their own Stuckist group. Hundreds have, and more groups keep appearing. The Stuckists themselves have no control over this, or vetting of the work or motivations of each member. This doesn’t diminish our view of Stuckism though, as we are motivated by the Stuckist manifesto, and it’s relation to our work.
The bad shouldn’t reflect on the good, as there is no relevant connection between the work. The best Stuckist work is a manifestation of its manifesto. This is all that really matters, and the work by which Stuckism should be judged. It is by the plucked work that other movements are judged, so surely the same should apply to Stuckism.
Many thanks
The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists

The danger of deciding that all conceptual art is crap is that you haven’t observed *all* conceptual art; that’s not humanly possible. You’ve observed a certain amount of conceptual art, and from that sample, decided that no work that could be described as “conceptual art” is worth observing. If, tomorrow, someone unveils a new piece of conceptual art that, unlike all conceptual art that has come before it, is actually good, well, you’ve already dismissed it — in your view, it can’t possibly be good, *because* it’s conceptual art. Doesn’t that fall under the broad meaning of “prejudiced”?

Let’s put that aside, though, and let’s say, for the purposes of discussion, that there is such a thing as a justified prejudice. If Stuckism’s rejection of conceptual art is a justified prejudice, then presumably there must be, in your view, something intrinsic about conceptual art which *necessitates* that it’s crap. In the hope that it might further the discourse, would you care to expound on what you think that intrinsic quality or qualities might be?

Is there not (at least potentially) a whole world of (at least potential) conceptual art beyond the insular Brit Art world with its names the Stuckists seem to hammer on again and again (Hirst, Emin, Tate, Saatchi, etc)? Are the Stuckists really enemies of conceptual art, or are they rather the enemies of the ridiculousness of the current art establishment — which happens to have latched on to conceptual art as an expedient means of keeping its social (and economic) bubble inflated?

Are the Turner Prize demonstrations by Stuckists not, themselves, conceptual art? They have certainly been described as such, by non-Stuckists. Do the Other Muswell Hill Stuckists decline to participate in these demonstrations? Would they decline if the demonstrations were widely regarded as conceptual art? How about if one person regarded them as conceptual art? What if that one person was Charles Thompson? Or ________________ (fill in any name you like here)?

I pose these questions as someone who:
* liked Stuckism a lot when I first encountered it a few years ago (especially Absolon’s cats and skeletons)
* enjoyed reading the Stuckist Manifesto
* finds a majority of Stuckist output (maybe about 80% of what I’ve seen) to be unengaging
* has noticed an increase in unengaging (even dreadful) work by Stuckists in the last few years (surely it is not surprising, if a movement embraces the term “daubing” and lets anyone with an email address start a local group, to see a certain amount of coattail-riding)
* will never be described as a Stuckist because I do not paint (nothing against painting, it’s just not my medium)
* could, conceivably, be described as a conceptual artist, but I do not use that term to describe myself
* is also disgusted by the state of the art establishment, and the terrible conceptual art that it elevates (disgusted because it is terrible, not because it is conceptual)
* will never be able to, say, ally with Stuckists to do something about that, if they decide that I am a conceptual artist and that all conceptual art is crap
* is somewhat disappointed about that last point
* does not seriously expect an answer to any of these questions (except maybe the one about there being something intrinsic to conceptual art which makes it crap; I’d really like to hear what you think it would be, if anything)
* wishes the Other Muswell Hill Stuckists the best in their future endeavors.