Erin Hayes on sat 10 apr 99
Hi All!
I know I said I was done with this, but I saw this in my mail and wanted to
comment:
"When the work speaks for itself an explanation is unnecessary, if the work
doesn't say anything then an artist's statement won't help."
This idea is very common, and is certainly one of the ways to look at art -
that it communicates all it can visually. In many respects this is true.
After all, if we were comfortable communicating verbally we might be a
poets' listserv instead.
The implication in this statement, however, is that the work itself "says
something" that the viewer can literally read and understand. I suggest
that artworks begin an internal conversation for viewers, and that *they*
decide what the work means.
As an artist, you might suggest some ideas by using certain colors, textures
or compositions - even by the shapes and forms you use. These are tools for
communication, although I can't imagine that anyone expects people who look
at their work to "get it," in the sense that a viewer would understand
completely what the artist was thinking about, trying to do compositionally
or technically.
Someone mentioned the need for "mystery" in artworks. I think this quality
comes from the gap that must exist between the artist's intentions and the
viewer's experience. I don't want any artworks to "say something" to me so
forcefully that an few simple words from the artist would kill all the
intrigue and interest in the work.
Just like a wheel and a sketchbook, an artist's statement is only a *tool* -
not any more or less helpful than any other tool. It can sometimes be a
good tool used badly. Sometimes it's an awkward tool that turns out to be
extremely useful.
I'm really going to stop harping on this now. I promise. With only one
parting shot: If anyone finds artist's statements corny or useless, they
shouldn't use them. If you think it might be helpful, try it. No one ever
has to see it but you.
Erin. (Now officially off-the-air on this thread.)
| |
|
