You are a beautiful person.

Has Klee written any books on colour that you know of? I'm really fascinated by the way that different relations of colour can affect us in a way similar to the way that different relations of musical tones affect us, as harmonic or discordant, and by creating moods through a succession of notes at different intervals.

Yes, he had quite a philosophical approach to art. This is the edition I have, I just looked on Amazon and they are asking £1000 for a copy, amazing. There are many books by commentators about his work, just google.

I'm not too interested in commentators, I'd rather get it from the horse's mouth, the primary source. That's why I'm in favour of artist's statements But that appears to be quite an expensive artist's "statement" you have there in that little book.

It makes me think, maybe sometimes the statement might be more valuable than the piece itself. What do you think of Banksy's "statement", with the self-destructing piece? Isn't this a case where the statement is supposed to be more important than the piece itself? The problem though, as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, the artist does not get to determine the value of the piece.

Maybe this "statement" concerns itself with the way that art is valued. With most merchandise, the seller does actually name the price, and the buyer pays or does not. There may be some negotiations, bargaining to actually lower the price, in some instances. What's with the auction, bidding up prices, so that only the rich can afford the product? I suppose it's a feature of the uniqueness of the product. But it's even becoming commonplace in real estate sales now, bidding wars to buy a house. That would be an artificial, illusion of uniqueness, created with the intent of raising the value of the object. Do you think that artists create an illusion of uniqueness, or a real uniqueness, to support the value of the art? Or is the value derived elsewhere, such as the artist's name and reputation?

I think you may be correct about me being a Miro. I think I’m “The Beautiful Bird Revealing the Unknown to a Pair of Lovers”. I like his art.

I might be a Paul Klee. — Punshhh

Hey, I'm a Paul Klee!

Kandinsky krew reporting!

The author has no interpretive authority? Isn't that kind of contradictory? — Metaphysician Undercover

I said he has no special interpretive authority, meaning that he doesn’t possess the right to give a final and uncontested interpretation of his work. But of course I would find it more interesting to listen to the artist rather than any random observer, expecting him to be an expert on his own work.

if the artist thinks that a statement of some kind is required to appreciate the work, then that is valid, a valid aspect of the work. — Punshhh

By valid aspect of the work, do you mean that the statement may belong to the work itself so that without it, it would be unfinished? In that case I disagree. Visual art speaks a visual language and its genuine message can only be expressed visually (or else the artist would have chosen another medium of expression).
(That is not to say that you can’t mix the mediums (book illustrations or opera for example), but you can’t pretend that the picture and the words are saying the exact same thing.)

Can’t the artist be completely wrong about this requirement? Imagine a mad van Gogh rambling on about his paintings. Do we have to take him seriously just because he is the artist?

What if an outside observer has detected an aspect that no one else has seen and thus changes everyone’s appreciation of the work. Does that observer then become the artist?

Yeah, I think most artists instinctively feel that the post-conceptualist artists' statement is a hoodwink. I have no talent, visual-arts wise, so I defer to my friends. But the vibe I get, as a graciously included outsider, is that everyone knows what the score is.

I also get this impression: visual artists who need to create, need to create in the same way philosophically inclined ppl need to argue and do philosophy. They're following something. Its instinct filtering into whatever medium they work in. They're doing what they do and then checking the boxes it seems to them they have to check.

It seems plausible to me that the critical complex, for reasons I can't put my finger on, needs to wrap up artworks in a discursive web shot through with ethical considerations. I'm no innocent here, I do it too, but it does seem like a certain kind of smoothing out.

Just dropping in. Read OP and nothing else.

I once went to friend's solo exhibition and sale a long time ago, about 15 years back.

There was just one theme on the walls, a semi-abstract painting, sort of pukey. On one of the four walls was a small typed card with the artist's statement.

It elevated her puke into real art for me.

The statement was about four words, but no more than six. I can't remember what they were, but they righted the paintings. It all fell into place, the focus was right away directed, and it shew the artist's brilliance.

Without her statement her pictures were crap.

With the statement, her pictures were enviably good. Your chin dropped. Your saliva dripped.

She sold seven of the twenty exhibited, each of them near identical to all others, and they cost something like 600 to 700 dollars each.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

Exactly.

Btw, I'm a Mathieu

By valid aspect of the work, do you mean that the statement may belong to the work itself so that without it, it would be unfinished? In that case I disagree.

Ok, I'll give you my artist's statement for my painting with the orange sky.

"Homage to Gormley"

Anthony Gormley is probably the most admired British artist of these times. He has created many cast iron installations around the country and the world. My painting is of this beach, Crosby beach.


There are many artistic works set on this beach by many artists, they are all to a degree a homage to Gormley.
Here is another one of my favourites.


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?

Here is another Gormley, it's so well known you have probably seen images of it.
Angel of the North.

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

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.

It seems plausible to me that the critical complex, for reasons I can't put my finger on, needs to wrap up artworks in a discursive web shot through with ethical considerations. I'm no innocent here, I do it too, but it does seem like a certain kind of smoothing out.

Yes, but from where I am, the establishment including academia feels they have a privelidge over the artist and the public, the viewer. Which is little more than snobbery. This is conflated, or tainted by large amounts of money changing hands.

I think you may be correct about me being a Miro. I think I’m “The Beautiful Bird Revealing the Unknown to a Pair of Lovers”.

:smile:

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.

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.

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. — Noble Dust

This is nonsensical. The artist produces a piece and offers it to the viewer, allowing the viewer the opportunity of interpretation. It makes no sense to say that the artist ought not offer a statement as part of the work as if the statement necessarily lessens the impact of the work, because the statement actually is a part of the work. Why do you think that any statement which the artist makes will necessarily lessen the impact of the work? If the statement is a part of the work, then if done well it will compliment the rest of the work. All the parts of a good work of art, work together. If the statement doesn't do this then it lessens the value of the art. But this only means that the artist has not properly used the statement. If the statement is well used it compliments the work.

And to say that the statement thrusts the work into the realm of "abstract" also makes no sense, because all artwork partakes of the abstract. So the statement, if it is an abstract aspect, is just another part of the abstract aspect of the piece of art.

And to say that the statement thrusts the work into the realm of "abstract" also makes no sense, because all artwork partakes of the abstract — Metaphysician Undercover

First time I've agreed with you about anything, ever.

It's not nonsensical; what borders on the nonsensical is that you barely even addressed what you quoted, which was a description of the difference between the viewer following their own interpretive path based on their inevitable 50% contribution to the work itself, vs. an artist statement trying to block this process. Try again.

And to say that the statement thrusts the work into the realm of "abstract" also makes no sense, because all artwork partakes of the abstract. So the statement, if it is an abstract aspect, is just another part of the abstract aspect of the piece of art. — Metaphysician Undercover

By abstract I just mean the process of interpretation (or explanation, in the case of the artist statement), which follows the initial sensual experience. A different word would probably work better.

It makes me think, maybe sometimes the statement might be more valuable than the piece itself. What do you think of Banksy's "statement", with the self-destructing piece? Isn't this a case where the statement is supposed to be more important than the piece itself? The problem though, as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, the artist does not get to determine the value of the piece.

Banksy is an interesting artist, this is a work he produced this week in Bristol.

He turns the art buying and art establishment world's on their head like a kind or art terrorist. The person who owns the wall on which the artwork was placed is now potentially a rich person. But what should she do? She did have a perspex sheet attached over it to shield it after she discovered the work, but members of the public destroyed the shield (but not the work), presumably because they abhorred the concept of the shield defaming this piece of terrorist art.
She could have the wall removed and put in an auction, which would be very costly and controversial. But that might expose her to ridicule, or something.

Going back to the work which shredded itself. I saw footage of the event, it was fascinating. There were all those rich establishment figures in a packed room at Sotheby's the piece sells for over a million pounds and then the look of horror and shrieks form the crowd as it begins to shred itself. There was wild speculation about whether it was now worthless, if Sotheby's were selling some kind of fraud. The purchaser was said to be distraught and worried about the status and value of the piece.

I expect it is actually more valuable now, as it is unique. I welcome this development and am interested in art terrorism myself.