Give me time to digest that.Art is a human expression which functions creatively/via the intuition. — Noble Dust
Oh, well. It's not that important anyways. Artists are going to continue writing statements, whether you like it or not. :wink: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... — Noble Dust
But the 'artist's statement' has to be understood as the specific thing it is. — csalisbury
Because art communicates via it's own inherent medium. — Noble Dust
But generally, good art should evoke interpretation, not require explanation. Does that make sense? No? — Noble Dust
This metaphor simply indicates that art is not primarily apprehended theoretically. — Noble Dust
I'm still waiting for your argument in favor of artist statements. — Noble Dust
Are we talking about artist statements as they actually function, — csalisbury
If we ingenuously follow this thread, we're lead to the fact that the artist statement is not simply an additional multimedia aspect, but something, essentially gallery and market-facing. Again, we need to be empirical here. Are we talking about artist statements as they actually function, or are we talking about an abstract idea of 'the artist statement' as it can be slotted into a pre-existing complex of thought involving identity, purity etc. — csalisbury
Edit: artist statements are an academic notion. — Brett
It's simple, it picks out an obvious theme, and it usually tries to relate the artwork to the child in some manner. It's not altogether different from - as the OP put it - a kindergarten show and tell. — StreetlightX
I think I mostly agree with this, but here's the case I want to make: in gallery conditions, where the artwork is already so alienated and displaced from the lifeworld - where its aura is already diminished - the statement can function in a compensatory register; it is a reactive effort to give something of what has already been lost.
The other option - call it the revolutionary option to my reformist one - is to refuse to play the game and say: here's the artwork, in this cold space, take or it leave it: if its aura is missing, thats your(?) problem, these are the conditions under which art is exhibited now, so this is what you get. A kind of identification with alienation ('accelerationist'?). And yeah sure, you can do this, but how effective is this going to be, really?
So I am trying to be historical-empirical here: this isn't just some abstract-theoretical argument in favour of multimedia experience, but really looking at how the artist statement functions in the conditions of alienated art. I see it as potentially offering a small window into an outside that no longer exists, a tiny effort at reclamation. The artist statement as the union and the dole, if I can make that comparison. — StreetlightX
So I am trying to be historical-empirical here: this isn't just some abstract-theoretical argument in favour of multimedia experience, but really looking at how the artist statement functions in the conditions of alienated art. — streetlight
how do artists understand the artist's statement? How do they approach it? What use do artists put it to? How do dealers understand the artist's statement. What use do they put it to. How do curators? Critics? and so forth. — csalisbury
I think a better question would be : how do artists understand the artist's statement? How do they approach it? What use do artists put it to? How do dealers understand the artist's statement. What use do they put it to. How do curators? Critics? and so forth. — csalisbury
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.If an artist’s statement is needed, it means that work of art is uncapable of fulfilling its purpose of communicating the intended idea, and consequently it is worthless.
But even though you yourself is the artist in this case, that is no guarantee that you could produce a better and more truthful interpretation than any other critic. In fact, being the artist doesn’t give you any special interpretive authority. — Congau
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.