Joerg, over at Conscientious in Limbo while his webserver recovers from a crash, posted some thoughts on Defining One’s Work.
A lot of the points here are good ones, points that work for the majority of photographic work. I understand where he is coming from, having experienced much of the same frustration when trying to get students to open up about their work.
The student responses he describes are often associated with the fears and lack of understanding depicted. I’m always refreshed when someone is willing to say they are still exploring, to tell me what their gut has told them about the work, and help me understand that while they don’t have a statement, they are thinking. This is much preferrable to some kind of faux philosophical anti-statement stance – however, I know some work does not need a statement. Some work does suffer under unnessesary verbiage.
I think a lot of people don’t believe in the idea of “misunderstanding” work. Can work be misunderstood if one believes part of the art process is the myriad of interpretations a viewer brings to the work? What if someone believes that art is not about some sort of succinct communication (a view blasted into mainstream society by the graphic and commercial arts) and is instead about something more organic, more mysterious?
I love writing, but I don’t feel that it is always necessary for work. Sometimes the best thing about a photograph is that it is silent. Sometimes the best thing about a work of art is that it is confusing and overwhelming and there is nothing there to catch you, to stop you from coming to your own grasping conclusions.
Of course, in art school, this work is rare. On the internet, it’s common. On surf clubs and with people who work with appropriation, pulling things out of context is often of more importance than describing the new context.
Regardless, it’s always important to be able to talk about work. I can’t think of anything that can’t benefit from discussion.
Printing words makes them concrete in some way. If you are going to put a statement in a book or on a wall, there is a sliding scale. Some work needs only a title. Some needs a sentence. Some needs an extensive discourse. And of course, some needs silence. Don’t let yourself be forced into any position, but remain open to the idea of words with your work. It’s true that many photographic works benefit from some kind of lead.
Joerg continues this discussion here, and here, where he talks about an email from Bradley Peters on the dangers of overdefining work.
I feel that Joerg and I are coming at this from pretty similar standpoints, and he is right to point out my contrarian stance: I hope I’m at least an atypical refusenik (I’m lucky enough that my great grandparents were allowed to emigrate from the soviet union, haha). I love writing statements and talking about my work. I just hate absolutes, so if someone says that there needs to be an artist statement for work, I have to try and think of a situation where an artist statement would be detrimental to the work. It is feasible, I think.
When Joerg holds the viewpoint that a well written artist statement will never be detrimental, I find I want to agree. Perhaps my reluctance is due to the actual words “Artist Statement.” They come loaded, with certain gallery, art school, and system related connotations. I certainly think that words can work well with anything, but so many people have an idea of what an artist statement has to be. It’s possible that they are ignoring all the less predictable ways words can work with other art forms. I hope that makes some sense.
Thank goodness someone brought up the idea about a “miriad of interpretations a viewer brings to the work” I think this is a very key concept when it comes to art and one which was left out of his post.
Why is something ever “misunderstood?” The fact is, as you walk through major museums, you see a piece or two by individual artists, not knowing a thing about their intent or process etc. The work either strikes you and makes you stop and feel or think something you otherwise would not, thus enriching your own personal existence – or it doesn’t. Every individual has a personal reaction to the work and they are ALL valid, even those that are completely in contrast to the artist’s intent or simply, “That sucks.” Once the artist has made the piece, it is between the work and the viewer. Of course, you can try to to influence the viewer, but I think this is contrary to what visual art should aim to do.
Conversations about the work are certainly interesting for those who want to delve deeper into an artist’s work they have really enjoyed in their own unique way and then are curious to understand more about in terms of process or intent.
At the very least, a statement should be shown AFTER the work, be it in a gallery or on the web. Don’t tell me how you want me to experience your work before I experience it in my unique, valid way.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 9th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Totally agree. I hate when a specific interpretation of the work is forced before the work is shown. This happens a lot in survey art classes, either before the slide is shown or right as it is, the professor tells you exactly what the work means and “why” it was created.
I think that approach is part of why many people are bored with visual art. They feel detached from the process because the conclusion was decided before they were invited to take part in any mental process.
Of course, those of us who really love art are often disagreeable sorts, apt to argue, or at least poke, examine, or reinterpret, any conclusion someone else presents for us. Students who are used to one correct answer on a test have a harder time with this.
[Reply]
Comment by J. Wesley Brown — May 9, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
i enjoyed this post very much. I don’t typically write extensively about my work until i feel it is completed to a point that i want to show it, in a gallery, etc. I’ll talk about it, but not write. I should write… then perhaps I’ll know when to leave silence only.
THANKS!
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:40 am
yeah, like most arts writing can be a selective process. Learning “when to leave silence” is a nice way to describe it.
I hate it when words say the exact same thing the images do except less artistically. It’s good when they compromise each other, play music together.
[Reply]
Comment by Alisha — May 10, 2009 @ 12:58 am
Take a look at Jeff Bark’s site. No statements. None needed:
http://www.jeffbark.com/
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:42 am
good example. Most websites don’t have statements, though almost all have titles for galleries. I like when the title is a good lead or clue to the work, and often it is enough.
Jeff also has image titles, or at least I assume the words to left are, and they work well.
I have to say that most of the websites that I’ve seen with an artist statement before the gallery don’t benefit from it. Websites with interviews and articles written by others about the work are often more interesting. I love when an artist presents multiple people’s viewpoints along with their own.
[Reply]
Comment by J. Wesley Brown — May 10, 2009 @ 2:13 am
Also, considering the nature of photography (as a technically oriented medium by default), it’s no surprise to me that most photographers have a hard time attempting to explore work outside of relatively literal perspectives. Photography doesn’t frustrate me, but a lot of photographer’s unwillingness to see things differently does. This conversation is largely irrelevant; of course not all art needs written statements! To suggest otherwise is preposterous. And now with the internet as arguably the most important venue for disseminating new ideas in art, it seems artists (especially photographers) have become allergic to the idea of spending time with work before an assessment is reached.
Good post Ian.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Good reply, Daniel!
I think you hit on the absolute most important aspect of writing artist statements:
It’s a system designed to make the artist spend more time with their work. I hate absolutes, so I can’t say that all work needs more time spent with it, but I must say that I wish more artists realized the importance of editing and living with your work. So much emphasis is placed on the initial creative moment, but everything that comes after is also part of creativity. Likewise, spending time with your work is important to making better work in the future.
[Reply]
Comment by Daniel Shea — May 10, 2009 @ 11:36 am
[...] One’s Work, Defining One’s Work, cont’d and Overdefining One’s Work) and Ian Aleksander Adams (In Response to Joerg Colberg’s Defining One’s [...]
Pingback by Beyond The Surface | — May 10, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
As one of those “Yale” guys that Joerg alludes to and as an educator | advocate of photography, I would propose that it is important for the photographer to be able to articulate their thoughts about their work – what their inspiration was, what transpired in their working process (from the ideas and curiosities raised by their initial photographic explorations to where the work is considered complete and finished), and just as importantly, what they believe the work is about and what it is revealing in relationship to their intentions.
An artist statement has two functions:
Providing a written context of the photographer’s intentions, thoughts and working process for a portfolio of photographs which is particularly insightful when the photographer is not there physically to speak about the work.
And, allowing the photographer to organize and structure their thoughts so he or she can be in command when presenting themselves and their work to others that allows for the work to be experienced in an engaging and meaningful manner, particularly in determining what to say and what not to say.
From a personal stand-point, I like to look at the work first to draw my own thoughts and conclusions without the influence of the statement when reviewing a portfolio of photographs. And when I’m meeting with the photographer, I’m most interested in what inspired the photographer, the development of the work from initial curiosity to what is being presented, and what the photographer believes the work is about in relationship to their intentions (what kind of dialog exists between the photographer’s intentions and a viewer’s interpretation).
In the end, whether were the photographer or the viewer, we are left with the work. And hopefully, the work will function on its own in such a manner that is visually engaging, demands contemplation and consideration and asks questions of the viewer. What am I looking at? And why do I keep wanting to look at it?
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Great summery, Paul, one that students could be pointed to if they wanted a quick definition.
I follow a similar path when looking at and reviewing work myself, and as everyone has been saying, the photographer and reviewer always get more out of it if some thought has been given to some kind of statement or development of ideas.
To some extent, I wonder if photography has a special, perhaps more specific, relationship with artist statements. There are certainly some mediums that use them more and some that use them less.
[Reply]
Paul Turounet Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The discussion and advocacy of an artist statement, particularly within an academic environment, is problematic as witnessed by the discussion being generated here and as I’ve experienced in working with other colleagues within photography as well as other art mediums (painting, installation, etc…) as an advisor for Junior Review and Senior Thesis presentations. I don’t think the relationship of these statements is any more or less special to photography than any other medium of artistic practice, whether it be painting, theater, dance…as these statements reinforce and potentially elevate the level of discussion of any given medium.
There is the tendency within academia to push students to get it “figured out” – how their work functions conceptually, visually and technically – and inevitably, the artist statement (or Senior|Graduate Thesis statement) ends up being considered the “ultimate and defining articulation” of the work, sometimes to the point where the work is considered secondarily.
I would propose to both students of photography, photographers, critics as well as my colleagues in academia that we collectively focus on the conceptual, visual and technical considerations the work presents first and foremost and use these artist statements to supplement and potentially expand upon our reading of the work. Nothing is lost for the artist to write these statements (and academia | critics to advocate them) provided our eyes are focused on the work – that the photographer | painter | sculptor has truly lived with their work and that this comes through in any discussion regarding the work (whether it be in writing or verbally). In the end, this potentially provides for a more engaged and informed level of discourse for all involved and ultimately, we all benefit from such participation in pushing the medium forward and in new directions.
[Reply]
Comment by Paul Turounet — May 10, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
[...] am all for artists writing up project statements in the greatest detail and, listen up, then have the whole thing notarized. You never know! It [...]
Pingback by Free Advice — May 14, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
I have now read bot this post and Joerg’s. Lots of interesting points on both sides.
I guess I would have to consider myself a “refucynic”. I did not go to art school, nor did I want to. I am a self-taught photographer… I love the history and consider myself a classicist (I prefer the old, dead guys, and the guys who will be gone soon). Sometimes that comes across as “snobby” or “elitist” but I really don’t care. I photograph what I like and do not restrict myself to any one topic/genre/style. I think that work can stand on it’s own without explanation, especially the guys I like. Most of the photographers I admire never went to art school or wrote statements… they didn’t need to. Many wrote about their photography, but not the BS we see today. Maybe because the world was simpler then, and now…
The younger “emerging” “artists”… they are a different story. It seems to me (for the most part) they are project-oriented. Pick a project (even better if no one else has done it before) and then try to make photographs. Therefore they need a statement from the get go. They do box themselves in a lot. Most of the “emerging” stuff I see I don’t like. I am happy that (as stated above) it is OK to say “That sucks!” The thing that really gets me is that a lot of this emerging work looks the same. I couldn’t tell you if MFA-1 or MFA-256 did it. Kind of like what happened to popular music (read Rock n Roll) in the 1980s – it all started sounding the same. And now we have American Idol… thank you very much. That’s why I gave it up for jazz, and not that “smooth jazz” garbage (same story, different genre).
I personally don’t have/sort of have a statement. I only say that I am drawn to “things that have been overlooked, forgotten, or looked at, but not seen. I find compositions where others see the ordinary, or nothing at all.” Does that mean that I won’t do landscapes again? Nope. In fact, for some reason I “had” to do some landscapes last time I went out. I don’t know why, I just felt like doing landscapes. Many of the images I made in Phoenix have disappeared in the last year… gentrified. I am playing with portraits now, and indeed, my most recent one (last week) has faded already (a victim of the economy). So I guess, my “sort of statement” works, but it doesn’t box me in.
I think the one thing that the “art schools” don’t/won’t teach is how to “enjoy” photography. Photography is an exhilarating, contemplative, personal, gratifying… oh cr@p, I might as well say it… it’s FUN! Most of these MFAs I see look like they have some psychological issues to work out or they are out to change the world. They’re not having FUN!
“I’m pretty good at recognizing cr@p when I hear it” Dabney Coleman, On Golden Pond
“You like that word, bullsh!t? It’s a good word.” Henry Fonda, On Golden Pond
[Reply]
Comment by Richard Coda — May 19, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
[...] This is a post that neatly and very smartly summarizes the ideas behind the refusenik approach: “I think a lot of people don’t believe in the idea of ‘misunderstanding’ work. Can work be misunderstood if one believes part of the art process is the myriad of interpretations a viewer brings to the work? What if someone believes that art is not about some sort of succinct communication (a view blasted into mainstream society by the graphic and commercial arts) and is instead about something more organic, more mysterious?” [...]
Pingback by Defining one’s work – On Statements « Memòries de Brooklyn — May 20, 2009 @ 3:51 am