The recent GD thread on “what is art?” left me in a quandry and reminded me of my difficulty in defining my own work. It’s hard enough just to set up the circumstances that enable me to work well, never mind figuring out ahead of time what it is I’m going to “accomplish”. Plus half the time I’m surprised myself by the results - a lot of my best stuff has been unintentional. I just did it & it happened to turn out well. Shoot, I’m not even sure what’s “good” most of the time; some of the things I’m crazy about now are things I almost threw away when I finished them, and vice-versa.
Are you saying that you were foolish enough to try to create without first writing a manifesto detailing WHY you were creating? How counter-revolutionary of you, Ms Tool of the Bougeousie!
I’ve had to write out an “artist statement” before and it really is one of the most stupid-feeling things to do. And when I’ve read other artists’ statements, it’s pretty evident that they think it’s stupid, too.
I agree about the artist statement as it echoes my experience. Just as bad, try writing a one paragraph blurb about yourself for a program or anthology. Yeeesh! Summarize your life and your accomplishments in three sentences not to exceed 35 words. I hope judgement day isn’t anything like that.
Yeah, the artist’s statement is a pain. I’ve decided to go for honesty and just say “I make pictures that I think look good. Read into them what you will.”
It doesn’t always go over well, but to hell with anybody who doesn’t like it.
(Of course, I’m not in a gallery right now, so maybe I need to try more bullshit…)
What’s hysterical (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) is the stupid BS that’s written by galleries/art critics to explain why a work of art is good.
Here’s a link to one of my favorite artists - I think his work is awesome because it has life and presence. It’s just gorgeous. But when I’ve read reviews, they’re all about some specific detail or another that seems completely superfluous to me (like the fact that he did some people in rooms - the critic went on and on about where he’d put people, the rooms). It’s like - DUH!!!
Robert Schultz is his name, and he works in graphite on paper, very tight.
They’ve often strike me as so overblown and self-conscious and so strained at their attempt to be deep and meaningful… but I used to try to hide this reaction, lest I be judged a barbarian who just didn’t get it.
But then one time viewing an exhibit with my Dad, I saw him shaking his head wryly over an artist’s statement, and I breathed easier. He’s an artist, and was director of an art museum.
How cute are you? Thanks for the compliment. I missed you.
ANYhow… back to the topic. Whenever I am asked for an artist’s statement, a bio, or some kind of summary of my work, I end up rolling my eyes and writing something very bland that could apply to almost anyone. I always try to throw in artsy words like “struggle,” “identity,” “journey” and “capture.” Critics (and art jurors) eat that shit right up.