There seems to be a style of artist statements that I’ve read that makes it very hard for me to get anything out of it. Perhaps it is all the references to esoteric lit crit terms that I know nothing about. I’m thinking of my brother’s statement, which seemed to me to be a parody of itself, until I saw a lot of others that felt the same.
Like in @TheRocketPig‘s statement, I don’t know what “loose narrative” means. It must mean something to artists who understand the technical elements of painting, but I have little clue. I could invent something, and it might be right (a narrative that kind of wanders all over the place, but never seems to go anywhere), but it might be wrong, and anyway, it takes too much guesswork to think about it.
The influences there—well, obviously you have to be some kind of art historian to get the references. A few pictures would help me, as a complete novice to art history. But I have no idea how to fix this problem, short of putting me through a mandatory art history class. Then there’s “awkwardness of human emotion” which again, I can’t imagine, although I suppose I shall pick that up out of the show.
My brother’s was even more esoteric that this. It probably referred to Derrida, since every critic seems to refer to Derrida, so I guess that means the artist’s have to, too.
I guess I want a clue about what the artist is trying to do. If it’s a loose narrative, what is that loose narrative? If it’s sarcasm, then fine, tell me the subject is sarcasm. If it’s about young lovers, or high school (that’s what awkward emotions sound like to me), please tell me. If it’s a sort of visual soliloquy about how weird it is to have any emotions at all, then tell me that.
My brother’s paintings are generally allegorical. Sometimes they refer to literary things; sometimes to artistic traditions. They are political, so their allegorical messages are political messages. He paints about stuff that bothers him. Mostly the environment. He’ll paint on trash. He’ll paint traditional stories and throw in unexpected elements to show that it’s not just the bucolic story, but how the bucolic story has been destroyed by modern technology. He’ll do things like painting an oil refinery as if it were being painted by someone in the Hudson River school. So the unexpectedness of acting as if the oil refinery was actually a beautiful thing, like scenes of natural beauty.
So why can’t he say, “I’m an environmentalist. I think modern technology and commerce is destroying our natural world. I create these allegories to bring attention to this story. I might use artifacts that represent the dangers I see, or juxtapose current events against historical traditions (Hudson River School) that honor beauty to illustrate my political beliefs. This is the art of global warming.”
It seems to me that artists often want to obscure their aims instead of making them clear, as if it’s a game to see whether viewers can “get” them. Maybe they don’t know how to be clear (after all, they are artists, not writers). Maybe it’s a tradition. Maybe, as @madcapper says, it’s a deliberate attempt to sound so smart no one can understand you. But gosh, Asmonet, if you could make it really clear, so even an uninformed and uneducated neophyte like me could understand, I would do cartwheels for you! It might not be pro forma, but it would be blessedly understandable.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
