INdividual cases may vary. But the tendency to want to control rather than stimulate/inspire thoughts shown in a trend towards greater use of artist statements, coupled with the tendency to have artwork that relies less on the sensual experience and is conceived of as something, yes, to convey information, to set certain mental verbal thoughts going, is to me a loss. I would never tell an artist not to do it. It might be perfect for a certain work of art. But to me it feels like a trend towards losing out on the sensual in deference to the verbal WHEN ONE NEED NOT choose if one has talent. You can convey incredible amounts information AND make something beautiful a broad sense of that term. But to get the skills to make something that is beautiful, you need to train your ass off, not just train your thinky little brainpan.I think in general it shows a trend away from the beautiful, for no good reason, and a desire to have specific thoughts in brains. To me that's what non-fiction books are for or opinion pieces in newpapers.With that out of the way, an artist's statement, if but an explanation, in some ways reflects a deficiency, a deficiency in the artwork itself which compels the artist to furnish the so-called artist's statement to, in effect, correct the image his/her work evokes in the minds of his audience to match his/her own. It may be wrong to call this a deficiency though. — TheMadFool
What you say is a matter for philosophers, not for artists, or viewers.
How familiar are you with artistic developments of the 20th Century? Because this distinction and all other attempts restrict art were challenged up to the point where everything was art and anything could be art. I pointed this out in the other thread, " where is art going next".
This development made any analysis by philosophers irrelevant, just like it made any comments by critics irrelevant, to art. — Punshhh
Not so, if anything and everything can be art, it is the artist who states what art is*, or if a philosopher were to state it, they would by default become the artist.Actually, I think the reverse is true. If it is true that "anything", and "everything" is art, then we need philosophy to determine what a "thing" is, because by this conclusion if it's not a thing, it's not art. Claiming that non-existent things are art is where the others have been going, insisting that imaginary things are art. As if I can look at a piece of art and imagine all sorts of things which aren't there, and claim that this imaginary stuff is part of the art.
I don't see how you have shown that the artwork is anything more than the physical piece. — Metaphysician Undercover
The difference in how these mediums relate to time demonstrates that the physical aspect of a work in any medium is only one variable in the totality of a work. Time and it's relationship to the physicality of a medium is another. Existentially, total experience of a work can't be tied down to one or more of the physical senses by which the work was apprehended. — Noble Dust
Isn't it necessary that the artist (composer) give very clear and precise "statements" in order that the piece be appreciated as it is supposed to be. The person who wants to hear the music cannot just interpret the instruction any old way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Claiming that non-existent things are art is where the others have been going, insisting that imaginary things are art. — Metaphysician Undercover
I go to watch a film and the director writes that the theme of the film is based on his holding back his true feelings for his father when he was a kid and how toxic not telling the truth is in family relationships. Hell, I might as well get up and leave. Doesn't this guy trust his artwork. Can't I come to that meaning myself. Maybe there is a whole lot of other stuff, even the director is not aware of, and now I will keep finding 'the' theme. — Coben
Do you not realise that something imaginary is art, or part of an art piece if the artist says it is so? — Punshhh
I summed it up here: — Noble Dust
No, not at all. Interpretation by the performer has always been an integral part of classical music, for instance; improvisation used to be pretty common place, even. The concept, within classical music, of a rigid, platonic ideal of the piece represented through notation is just an ossification; the formation of an orthodoxy. And that's to say nothing of stuff like this (John Cage): — Noble Dust
LOL, is sci-fi not art? — Noble Dust
The art is the physical thing, the written material, not the interpretation of it. — Metaphysician Undercover
n the case of a novel, if the art is the physical thing, what exactly are you referring to? The words in a specific language used? The grammar? The ink choice of the publisher, and their choice of paper type? By "written material" do you mean the whole thing, the "novel"? — Noble Dust
Have you been to an art museum or gallery lately? — Noble Dust
If artist's statements are more a rule than an exception then it might be a very big hint that the task of making the art speak for itself is either very difficult or maybe even impossible. — TheMadFool
They can, and I would fight to allow them. I see it as a bad trend, and as an increasing trend. Part of a trend towards a diminishment of investment into the sensual aspects of art and a seeing art as getting messages and ideas across as the main idea. Since a beautiful work can do this just as well, as one put together with one with less skill, this means a general trend to a net loss.why can't artists have the corresponding artist's statement? — TheMadFool
Part of a trend towards a diminishment of investment into the sensual aspects of art and a seeing art as getting messages and ideas across as the main idea. — Coben
All the avenues of imaginary, or conceptual art were explored, covered and represented by artist during various art movements during the 20th Century.How would you present something imaginary as art, if not in a physical form? And, the physical form is the artwork, not the imaginary thing which is represented.
There was a gallery in which the lights were turned off and on again every few seconds. I don't know where, or what the physical form of the art piece was. — Punshhh
Met Breuer was trash. Two small floors worth of disgusting modern art. Nothing requiring skill.
I think that is for the viewer to decide, that's not the way I saw it. Unfortunately I don't know what the artist statement said.Wasn't the physical work the blinking of the lights?
Again, this is a matter for philosophers, not for artists, viewers, the art establishment, the wider public. At least not as a requirement for art to be art. You suggest it becomes a process of communication, well yes and the artefact might become an irrelevance at some point during the communication. The ramifications would reduce the communication to communication/conversation within the mind of the viewer, even an emotional conversation within the viewer, the artist, is also one of these viewers. One can identify a conditioned response to an artwork, a human nature response,which could become a foil for the mind and the emotions. Leading to a complex reaction, interpretation and response to an artwork, or any comment on it.Now, if we are talking about art as a form of communication, we are talking about something abstract, and not individual pieces of artwork any more. Then we would need to proceed by asking what is the purpose of communication. What would be the purpose of randomness, or even ambiguity in communication
You suggest it becomes a process of communication, well yes and the artefact might become an irrelevance at some point during the communication. — Punshhh
I would dismiss both of these extremes. I think that art in its truest form is not designed to "communicate" in any way at all. I would say that it is designed to inspire the observer to create one's own ideas. It is not meant as a communication, but as a catalyst of inspiration. As such, it may or may not include a "statement". But I think that any critical analysis which focuses on subjects like correct interpretation, what the artist meant to portray, or even interpretation at all, are looking at art as a form of communication, and this is the mistake. We ought to look more at the feelings and thoughts which the art helps us to produce, regardless of whether the artist intended to produce these particular ideas, as in communication. Notice the difference between recognizing and interpreting one's own feelings and thoughts inspired by the art, and interpreting the art. Then the art becomes a feature of the observer's own ambition, spirit, and creativity, rather than the observer becoming a feature of the artist's work. The highest quality appreciation is without interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now I'm confused as to how/why you disagreed with my points this whole time. — Noble Dust
You must have had a good look at that painting ;) — Punshhh
It should be evident from what I said, that I do not view art in the same way that you do. — Metaphysician Undercover
I look at it as something which can inspire me, like any of the numerous other things which might inspire me, sunrise, sunset, cows in the pasture, birds in the woods, a severe storm etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover
You described a shared experience between the artist and the viewer, as if the artwork is some form of communication. — Metaphysician Undercover
Remember, I said that you are solely responsible for the creation of your own phenomenological experience of the art, the artist plays no role in this. — Metaphysician Undercover
In communication we expect that the author imposes restrictions on our experience, and we respect this. That is meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
In art we provide our minds the freedom to appreciate and be inspired by, the beauty, in whatever form it takes, rather than constraining our minds toward apprehending the meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.