The term of conceptual painting is rather often used among artists. At the same time, very few people think of semantic filling of this definition - rather over total absence of that. Arguing about art in his spare time, you can freely use such a beautiful and abstruse term as conceptual art. For example, the combination of colour  patches, completely devoid of some independent effect, might find a certain sense and sounding just in a combination to the verbal comment. 

It should be noted that here we see very curious picture when primary and really operating factor is not a painting, but namely the text - the verbal comment. At the same time such a verbal comment often substitutes for the action, and a painting plays a purely secondary and servile role. This reason lies on the surface. The classic presentation of conceptual art is that the idea of conceptual painting is nonsense, an oxymoron, since conceptual art is action and the idea, while the painting - a place and time.  And the attempts to transfer action and a state by means of painting - is fruitless by definition.

Much easier is the case with the concept of symbolism in painting. Since this area of ​​the fine arts (conceptual symbolism) uses already finished and established symbols, the role of the text annotation is not the substitution of action, but only the individual interpretation of images and symbols. The very same pictorial image can live, so to speak, with independent life. And the interpretation by the public of the symbols presented, may differ from the description of verbal comment.