urban ku # 51 ~ artist's statements and critical thought
Saturday, April 14, 2007 at 12:56PM 
Grand View Motel • click to embiggenLet's get right to it.
Featured Comment: On ku # 471, Bret Kosmider wrote; "... Perhaps I could glean that meaning out of your artist statement but there's nothing compelling me to read it since I just assume that they are "pretty pictures" and nothing more ...."
Caveat - Bret, although the following is instigated by your comment, it is not directed at you personally.
Sure enough. Without reading my artist's statement, that might be a valid assumption - as valid as any assumption which anyone might make without reading my artist's statement. There's the temptation on my part to quote that thing about what happens when one assumes, but let's not go there. Let's be more thoughtful than that.
My first question back to you all is simple - knowing that an artist has taken the time and made the effort to extend to the observers of his/her work a glimpse into who he/she is, their motivation(s) and their intentions, why wouldn't you read it?
In consideration of the fact that, in all but the most propagandist of art, meaning is at best elusive, why wouldn't you read it?
Unless one assumes that all art is, in fact, merely decorative - pleasing to the eye and soothing to the psyche, why wouldn't you read it?
Unless one flat out doesn't give a damn about the person behind the curtain (shutter), why wouldn't you read it?
Unless all that matters is what you think, why wouldn't you read it?
There is the persistent notion amongst many who dislike or are suspicious of artist's statements that they are nothing more than transparent and rather feeble (and often deliberately obstuse) attempts to make important work that is otherwise devoid of merit. At times, perhaps this is true. But, an artist's statement is like the art itself - you can take it or leave it as is your wont. One is free to judge it and the artwork on their individual or collective merits.
Knowing that, and, if one believes that the best art works on 2 levels of understanding - the denoted and the connoted, why wouldn't you read it?
Critical thought relies on an open mind which seeks to gather as much information as possible on the topic at hand. So, once again, why wouldn't you read it?
Perhaps, upon first observing the pictures of other, one doesn't wish to be 'influenced' by what the artist has to say. Fair enough, but, once one has observed the pictures, why wouldn't you read it?
I just don't understand the near revulsion many have for the artist's statement.
Comments please.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Butzi wrote; "One of the reasons why many/most people don't pay much attention to artist's statements is that they know, from first hand experience, that artist's statements generally fall somewhere between outright lies and post facto rationalizations for the work..."
my response: I am certain that some have written self-serving 'post facto rationalizations'. No doubt. But using this as a rationalization for dismissing all (or most) artist's statements is rather ridiculous.
Not to mention that this atttitude dismisses the possibility of self-discovery by artist when viewing his/her work after or during the ongoing process of its creation - call it 'post-facto self-realization'. Many artists, myself included, use the process of creating art as a means of self-examination and discovery - a means to discover something that he/she does not already know about him/herself and the world about them.
My artist's statement contains at least one 'post-facto realization' about myself and my work which came from an observation about my work made by another. I have taken that revelation and folded into my ongoing cognitive motivation for and understanding of what I am doing. The fact that I have included this revelation/realization 'post-facto', or more accurately 'secundum-facto', does not make it a post-facto rationalization.
Reader Comments (17)
One of the reasons why many/most people don't pay much attention to artist's statements is that they know, from first hand experience, that artist's statements generally fall somewhere between outright lies and post facto rationalizations for the work.
For example, Guy Tal (a photographer for whom I have a great deal of respect) commented on my blog:
So, in fact, it's not possible to know that your statement provides a glimpse into your work, who you are, and what your motivations are. Beyond that, it's perfectly acceptable for people to simply not care what you think of your own work.
I would think an ex-post-modernist would realize that authorial intent is not really a meaningful concept anymore. Totally discredited.
I have no problem with artist's statements, in general, but I do have a problem with the many artists who use it as a means of artificially elevating the importance of their work. Much of what is written is simply pompous, self-serving, artistic masturbation written more for fellow artists and collectors than for the average viewer.
That being said, I think a truly heartfelt and well written artist's statement can help the viewer understand the artist's motivation and give a better foundation for appreciation of their work.
I think the dislike comes into play because they ARE so difficult to write...or at least write well. Dismissing all artist's statements is a good way to explain not having one, eh? :)
Chuck
I'm not quite sure why it is photographers seem afraid of writing about themselves and their work or are so strongly opposed to thinking critically about it? Insecurity? Laziness?
There's nothing more self absorbed than the whole "I just do it for myself/art is a verb" attitude. It just seems like visual (?) navel gazing.
If you are serious about what you do, I'd have to agree with Mark on the centrality of critical thought and clearly thought out work. Only fuzzy work just comes out of fuzzy concepts. It's hard for the work to have intention if there is no thought behind it
(and sure, ideas don't make a photograph - and you can't take pictures with a dictionary - but the idea, the critical thought and rigour, needs to be there - or yes, it's just decorative in the end)
Mark, all valid points, there's no denying that.
I guess my argument is related *in part* to what you touched upon that I can look at some art, read the statement and still think to myself a) I could have done that and b) what a bunch of B.S. Now, I'm not going to say that to the face of the artist because obviously the exhibition means something to them, but many statements I have read are transparent to me - they may not be to everyone else. I think the disconnect also comes from not having an emotional connection to the subject matter of the exhibition and I will walk away thinking that it was nice, "I get it", but emotionally I'm not invested and thus cannot see much of the hooplah surrounding some of the celebrated exhibitions of PoMo art recently.
I think what it boils down to is, as an artist who has contributed to many competitions that required and artist statement I feel that, based on the questions I get from gallery patrons at opening nights is that many of the viewers do NOT read the artist statement. They walk through, judge by aesthetics and walk on. I know thats not the case for every patron though. And maybe the venues I've contributed to are rather low brow, who knows.
I think there was a spirited debate in the blogosphere a month or so ago regarding the meaning of photographs and whether the written word should contribute to the meaning of a photograph or not. This post is probably returning to that debate. At the same time that I challenge the transparency of some artist statements I also realize the intense symbioses between some photographic projects and their respective artist statements. It is an essential relationship, it seems, for some types of photography. Other genre of fine art photography exist that do not rely so heavily on the artist statement. I think this is what you are referring to as "decorative art" (aka the dust bin).
My point here is that I think it's ludicrous to say anything without an artist statement/implied meaning is unworthy of anyone's time or to be taken seriously. In my work, as an example, I try to capture a moment in time that will elicit an emotional response from the viewer. I go for the dramatic stuff. It should be noted that there's a few post-modernists out there who utilize drama in the form of visual shock to elicit an emotional and visceral (aka without using intellect) response.
I know what you are saying though - to make a permanent place for photography in the *serious* and critical fine art world, photographers will need to produce work that is critical of the world around them.
But I still like to create and view works of art that embrace the beauty in the world and I hold them up to the Walls, and Gurskys and find that the "pretty pictures" speak to me more so than most of the post-modern stuff out there.
Thats just me.
Brett Kosmider
Minneapolis, MN
I'm one of those who always looks for and reads artist's statements. They may well be nearly opaque, but that very fact can tell me a good deal about the artist. More often, they're the basis for an interesting conversation and connection even when I don't care for the work (as happened just last night). I'm well aware of what Tal or any artist is doing; I don't have to drop all critical faculties and take the statement as gospel.
That said, the reality is that a photograph will usually have to stand on its own, unless related text is physically attached to it. Statements will become separated, or not be noticed, or not be attended to for whatever reason.
I think any art object should work to some level without benefit of text. But I don't assume that I'm so knowledgeable and perceptive that I'll get everything there is to be gotten at first glance. The statement should enable me to get to deeper levels in the limited time I have. I'm sure I'd have a blast in the African veldt on my own, but I'd hire a guide if I could afford it. I can read a statement for free.
"Only fuzzy work just comes out of fuzzy concepts."
Tim, I think its hilarious that you're quoting a Modernist (Ansel Adams) to justify the post-modernist concept of expression of critical thought through art.
Brett
"Only fuzzy work just comes out of fuzzy concepts."
Tim, I think its hilarious that you're quoting a Modernist (Ansel Adams) to justify the post-modernist concept of expression of critical thought through art.
actually I was paraphrasing Anselm Kiefer...
but Adams a modernist - ha - you made my day.
More like a Post/Late-Romantic at best
Good stuff guys (and gals - I know you're there). Keep it coming.
Tim, you got me on that one! Boy did I botch THAT one. I meant to say "Straight" photography, but it just shows that when I, a self-proclaimed art non-historian, think I know a little I spout off and get cocky, it comes right back in my face. I can now claim to know enough about art history to be dangerous (usually to myself) and with every day I think it would just be easier to make photographs and let someone else tell me what box I fit in to - be that box a good box or a "bad" box.
Brett
To me it's simple: As a photographer I try to expres my feelings, my opinions, my (critical) thoughts about the world and my fellow human beings by making photographs. Yeah, sometimes it's just beauty I describe in my photos, sometimes it's uglyness, sometimes it's trust, sometimes it's love. Most of the time it's a combination of many things.
Of course one has more or less to plan how one wants to “attack” the subject that has to be photographed. And after taking or making the photographs, please be critical, throw away and use the bin!
But the real reason I don't believe in an artist statement is that it is put into words. Photographs are pictorial. They are images. And in my opinion those two (words and images) do not cover the same field of human experience. So an artist statement will never cover completely what a photographer is trying to expres in images, in pictures.
At the other hand I always try to think in words about about my pictures. This make me understand me better why I make them and what I am trying to archieve.
But there is a point where the words stop and the (photographic) images begin.
brett - there are plenty of people who consider Adams a Modernist photographer - and those who don't...!
OK guys, here's a bunch of photographers who have that "edgy-post-modern-look" but lack artist statements on their websites. Am I to assume their photographs have some sort of meaning because of the aesthetic? Because at first look many of these photographs neither poses beauty in the classic sense (aka are not "pretty pictures") nor does any kind of meaning leap out at me. They just have that "look" that implies I need to search for deeper meaning, yet I can't without an artist statement.
Todd Hido http://www.toddhido.com/
Justin Newhall http://justinnewhall.com/
Kevin Cooley http://www.kevincooleyphotography.com/
Jeff Brouws http://www.jeffbrouws.com/ (OK so he uses press clippings to convey his statement, thats not fair, he needs to write his own)
Maybe they have artist statements provided at the exhibits or with the curators, but without it they look like abandoned buildings, homes at night, and snapshots from a roadtrip. Yet I am supposed to inherently *know* that these photographs have meaning, somehow?
Brett
'About the work he wrote that it was a commemorative monument to intercultural peace and also that "the cube is, to start with, a cube, an abstracrt form. Everything else is open to association, and everybody can atribute what content or meaning they choose. This is the tradition in which I was educated."'
Gregor Schneider. Quoted in Art Monthly (April 07. No. 305).
I'm sure we can all point to photographs that stand entirely on their own. For a fine example of photographs and text working together, see the description of an Adam Nadel exhibit in Howard Grill's latest blog entry.
Do novelists have artist's statements? Playwrites? Isn't the point of visual art to communicate in a non-verbal manner? Doesn't the presence of an artist's statement imply a failure to make one's point in one's chosen medium?
Artist's statements seem to be an effort on the part of the artist to either cover up for their failure or to control the viewer's experience. I'd rather look at the work and make my own judgement, thanks.
While your current artist statment is better than your previous AS, which required Roget's, and the willingness to spend 45 minutes reading each incomprehensible sentence, all for the satisfaction of saying "what the f*** is that supposed to mean," I can tell you I wouldn't read an AS until I had checked out everything else there was to see. This may be becuase your prior AS was just so bad, that I expect them all to be that bad.
Maybe others have past trauma from trying to read artists statents, and so they just avoid, them like me.
Yeah, the artist's statement is usually the very LAST (and least important) part of my experience with other people's art. I do read them and sometimes they are illuminating but most often I find them verbose and pretentious sounding. I like to know a little bit about the "life" of the artist and then be left alone to absorb the work and draw my own conclusions and derive meaning. Sometimes they come across like a hammer to my head and that's just no fun.