So now you know all this, are you to deny my artist's statement and insist that we all stay where we were before I wrote this post? — Punshhh

I won't deny it, but I'm grateful to have read it after experiencing the work first. When I saw your painting, I felt an almost mystical sense of moving into the unknown. As the artist, you're free to shoot this down as a dumb interpretation, but it won't change the experience for me. Now that I know what the painting represented, it adds depth. But again, only afterwards.

Yes, there are, but this is not to deny there are others which benefit from some qualification by the artist. I think the issue is with either the viewer being limited, or directed to view a piece in a certain way. Or the artist being limited by what a viewer, a critic, or the establishment say. — Punshhh

Along with @Congau, what I'm arguing is that the work should not need qualification from the artist. The reason for this is that it lessens the impact of the work; it pulls the work out of the immediate sensual, and into the abstract and theoretical along a definite course not set by thew viewer. Interpretation, on the other hand, is that same process but done of the viewers own volition. This is important because the audience is half the work anyway. The audience members unique experiences, perspectives, and mindset will determine their interpretation. That's not to say that the artist can't have an explanation at hand; but forcing it on the audience will just inevitably cheapen the experience, and therefore, the work itself.

Also, I'm not advocating some kind of snowflake "everyone has their own truth" idea here. I think a good work of art should illicit many interpretations, but they'll all inevitably remain within a certain set of parameters just based on the content of the work. Lynch's Twin Peaks The Return is a good example. Without giving anything away, it's wide open for interpretation because of how hard it is to follow, but most interpretations I've read/watched videos on center around themes of dream vs. reality, timeframes/eras/alternate timelines, and what happened to Laura Palmer. Without giving anything away. The richness of interpretation possible is what makes the show so inimitable, and gives it it's rabid fanbase.

I'm not a visual artist, but as a songwriter, I'm very aware of this process. The songs I write have definite meaning; I write them, use poetic imagery, dance around themes a little. But each song means something to me, the songwriter. But what it means doesn't matter to you, the audience, because you don't know me personally anyway. What you do when you hear a song of mine, is you may or may not interpret the lyrics in a certain way. It may or may not have a substantial impact on you. If you knew what the song was about for me, the songwriter, it may lessen the meaning that it has for you, the listener.

Btw, I'm a Mathieu

Without her statement her pictures were crap. — god must be atheist

Exactly.

I think this is to simplistic, some works of art are carried out, or conceived of by the artist which are not evident in the finished work. There is a case, especially if the artist wishes it to be so, for some kind of explanation. — Punshhh

I would counter that and say some works (hopefully all of them, actually) "invite interpretation", not explanation.

If you are a visual artist, a painter or an installation artist, you have presumably chosen that profession because you have something to tell the world that can only be expressed in the particular language of your art form. If your message could have been articulated using words from the spoken language, there would be no reason for you to dabble in visual art. In that case you should be a writer instead since after all, a natural language like English, however fallible, is the most efficient way to communicate thoughts from one person to the next. — Congau

This is key to my argument, I failed to touch on this. If this concept of art as it's own language is some high horse pedestal of "purity", then I'm fine with that. I'll gladly stay up there and enjoy the purity while all you philosophers with no imaginations assemble endless words about living, breathing artwork. :up:

If you think it's cheesy, then ignore the statements. Or better yet ignore the art which includes statements altogether. Isn't that what we normally do with art that we dislike? — Metaphysician Undercover

But it's a philosophy forum; I'm doing philosophy. Don't worry, I do ignore them. Then I rail against them philosophically.

I've definitely learnt to see or feel or listen or think differently as the result of some, and maybe that makes me some kind of phillistine, but then, fuck any elitism that expects everyone to 'get it' on the strength of their own art-analytic powers. — StreetlightX

Dropping in at random, been away for awhile. I'm not advocating an elitism expecting everyone to "get it"; I'm not a visual art expert either, I come from music. If I'm talking about any sort of, what you've projected unto my idea as a call for, "purity", it's not some imagined purity of people "getting it" instinctively. The pre-statement experience I'm talking about doesn't require that. I remember sitting in front of Pollock's Autumn Rhythm for half an hour, just soaking it in (without reading the statement). I started to feel like I was either inside someone's brain, or looking at the cosmos; a very "so above, so below" experience. I have no idea if that was the intention of the work, and I don't care. That was my first experience of his work in person; up till then I hated pictures I'd seen of his work, whereas I loved pictures I'd seen of Rothko. But the same day, I had the opposite experience. Rothko was oppressive to me in person. So here's an example of the experiential thing I'm talking about actually changing my perception of different works, without any text to supplement the experience. My experience was enriched simply through itself. That's what I'm talking about. If that makes me elitist, then so be it. But what is more elitist than an artist statement? it tries to stifle the everyday person from having their own experience. I can't think of anything more elitist than that.

Indeed; we (artists) will continue to write them, and I will continue to rage against the writing of them.

Like I said, I don't want to get into a debate about what art is; that's not what this thread is about. If we seem to disagree about the definition...well, there we are. Which cycles back to what you initially said...it's ok to disagree...

But, I put together that definition on the fly in as succinct a way as I thought made sense. Art is...an...expression. But uniquely human. Does it have a function? It seems that it does: it functions creatively; another way to say that is that it functions via the intuition. Or, in other words, the human faculty for expression requires creativity. Art is the product of that process.

Also fair. "What is art?" There was a whole 20-something page thread about this...I don't want to get mired in another one of those debates, so I'll try to set out the minimum tenets I find to be necessary in a definition of art.

Art is a human expression which functions creatively/via the intuition.

It is, but this is a philosophy forum where we discuss ideas which we generally disagree about.

I feel like your twisting the word "context" to suit your position. It's not a big deal, just pointing that out. — Wheatley

I mean, sure, there is an "outside" context (the artist, culture, etc), and there is the "point-of-view" context: you. I just spitballed that right now, but is that more clear? What I'm trying to say is that the "you" context gets neglected in the glut of the illusion of "objective" context which no one actually has. And I think that illusion is detrimental to art appreciation.

I don't think it's fruitful to make such broad statements about art, as if there's an essence to art. There are many different kinds of art and many different ways to appreciate it. Let's not oversimplify things here. — Wheatley

I disagree; make a case.

The way I see it, a statement for the most part is just another way to engage with an artwork; another way 'in': it's embellishment upon an embellishment, excess upon excess. — StreetlightX

What? the work itself was not an embellishment or excess to begin with. When I write a song, I'm writing a song so I remain alive. If you don't understand this about art, again, you just don't understand art. And I don't mean that as an insult.

I'm not saying that art 'requires' a statement. That'd be silly. I'm jsut against the negative: that is must be without one, otherwise - what? It interrupts some purity? No. It's all excess. — StreetlightX

And I'm not saying artist statements should be banned. But they should not have the place in the conversation that they do. @csalisbury has done an ace job of describing that.

No, you provide the contextual lens through which the work is viewed. I mean, is this really debatable? The context [which is] "whatever inspired the artist" is something that you experience yourself. The illusion we all fall into is that we're philosophers observing from Hannah Arendt's concept of a perfect objective viewpoint; we're not.

I like to think I will have an enhanced perception of the art piece if I knew more about it. :up: — Wheatley

I don't disagree with you here, and I think this is key, and probably a source of further confusion in regards to my position. Educating oneself about works of art is a rich pastime which I recommend indiscriminately to anyone. But, for maximum aesthetic experience, education should follow experience. Why? Because the experience will be lacking if it's preceded by education. Theoretically understanding something creative inherently robs the creative work of it's essence. This is understood experientially, not theoretically (which is not surprising). This of course brings up the big question of what art is for; is it primarily for aesthetic experience? To add more confusion, the answer is no. But aesthetic experience is the language of art, not it's goal. So, counter to @StreetlightX's claims that my view is bourgeoisie here, the exact opposite is the case. The pleasure of art is merely it's communication; what it actually communicates is philosophically beyond pleasure.

I feel like I say this every other post, but the most important context to a piece of art is you. You provide the context. Not only is there cultural and theoretical context to any given piece, there is also your perception of that context. The audience is half of the work itself. This is a seminal building block to my philosophy here, and I think is responsible for so much confusion.

Why should an artwork 'speak for itself'? — StreetlightX

Because art communicates via it's own inherent medium. If you don't understand this, then I don't know what else to tell you, and I'm not trying to insult you by saying that.

Why it is 'not worthy of anyone's time' if it requires an explanation? — StreetlightX

Maybe I went a little overboard here. But generally, good art should evoke interpretation, not require explanation. Does that make sense? No? Let me know if it doesn't.

What is the artwork's 'own terms'? — StreetlightX

This metaphor simply indicates that art is not primarily apprehended theoretically. Again, let me know if you have any questions.

I'm still waiting for your argument in favor of artist statements. Why are artist statements important/good/necessary/helpful, in your view, @StreetlightX?

That's not a proper argument. Can you elaborate? I gave specific examples; I'd love specific examples of how you disagree in such a polar opposite way. It would help both of us understand our disagreement, and clear up confusion.

For instance, make a case for why what you perceive as my conception of purity is a myth.

Can you present an argument in favor of artist statements? Other than the concept of a children's artist statement, which I think is fine for what it is. In the OP I made room for this; I asked some open questions that provided potential avenues for counter arguments. So far I've only seen reactions against my arguments, all of which I've found to be pretty easily thrown aside. I'm asking honestly.

Thank you..

The kids' statements really bring out that childish wonder which I think is sometimes the best way to experience art. — StreetlightX

I agree that childish wonder is perhaps the best way to experience art, but that exact experience is immediate; the childish wonder of experiencing something artistic for the first time has nothing to do with a theoretical abstract; it simply happens to the observer. There's no need to read a philosophical perspective to receive the experience. A child shouldn't have to be told that different shades of blue can be metaphors for different kinds of sadness; a child can experience that on their own, without guidance.

Give me context, give me themes — StreetlightX

The context is you, the observer. If I need to give you the themes, then you're being lazy.

I simply have no time for 'purity' of art. Art isolated, put on a pedestal in the middle of a warehouse with a single lonely light on it. That's art for the collector, who wants to admire pretty things without being disturbed by anything else. Can I say that's bougie bullshit? I'm not sure if we're allowed to use bougie as an insult anymore. — StreetlightX

But purity in art is the experience of childish wonder.

To me most works that I love stand on their own. I can spend time with the work as a sensous experience, and then if it is representational, I can mull over the meanings. I think if someone feels the need to explain what is going on in their art, at the place where the art is shown, they don't really trust their artwork. — Coben

:clap: :party: :100:

Ah. Policing art in the name of not letting art be policed. Very good. — StreetlightX

Surely you are aware of the inanity of what you're saying. If calling for art to be freely experienced by the audience without the imposition by the artist of a forced theoretical framework is "policing", then I'll be happy to continue incarcerating mediocre work indefinitely.

"Shut up and look" is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take when your contemplation is being interrupted, but as an op is smacks of performative contradiction, because you are yourself breaking the silence. — unenlightened

I'll try again, if I may. I'm not breaking any silence by crying "no artist statements!" I'm interrupting the noise of the artist statements themselves. If there were no artist statements, I wouldn't be adding to the noise. I would be quietly reflecting on good art.

but as an op is smacks of performative contradiction, because you are yourself breaking the silence. — unenlightened

What?

No, it's not. Demonstrate how I'm wrong.

By "defend yourself" I was signaling that I didn't outright agree, but also didn't outright disagree.

What I mean is that they use the artist statement to justify a work that has very little substance. — Brett

I agree.

The idea that "the artist statement justifies the work itself".

Hmmm, defend yourself.

I don't mind a good title; hell, I love a good title to a novel. But what I'm against is when the artist tells me what their work means. Stop being so precious and precocious. Let your work breath.

Edit: artist statements are an academic notion. — Brett

Sure, but they are also provided at art museums, and at musical performances. They exist beyond academia; they exist in the artistic wild.

But are you not ashamed of your piddly 50 pages? And yeah, I voted, probably like 3 years ago.

I agree, and feel like I need to make it clear I'm not a JBP fanboy. He's stated that he's loaded. He's made bank on his ideas. But it's clear that he's also made a positive impact on people who were down and out. I think that's what boils my blood the most in this situation. He has helped people. That's a good thing, and should be applauded. He's probably helped more people lift their lives out of the muck than @Maw and @Evil have.

Reminds me of the I Ching. Or Kairos over Chronos.

No, I don't know how you felt.

I'm too naive, as always. To treat any human being the way you treat Peterson demonstrates that you have no sense of what it means to be human. No human deserves the fire and brimstone you're throwing; I feel like I'm back in the church I grew up in.

Damn, Clapton can "rot". (Historically, not as a human being).

Ah. So you agree that your sentiment "now he can rot" is included in the list of sentiments about Peterson I quoted that illustrate that people are willing to treat Peterson as un-human.

What?

I neglected to quote it, but the sentiment "now he can rot" is included.