I believe that every artist needs this book

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Well, I'm sure the sesquipedalians among us wouldn't want you feeling disenfranchised, but are you sure "disenfranchised" isn't too long a word? Them word police might come after you for not simply saying "denied the right." But now I do find myself wondering whether "disenfranchised" is more or less musical than "atavistic." I kind of like the sound of "atavistic." It's got a bit of staccato going for it.<br /> ;-)</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>What is art and what is an artist?</p>

<p>Art is something created by an artist.<br>

An artist is someone who creates art.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

With apologies to Nat King Cole and everyone here:

 

 

 

" Do you smile to tempt a lover, Mona Lisa...,

Or is this your way to hide a broken heart...."

 

Do you smirk hiding atavistic urges,

or the Decameron in your bodice, you tart?

 

I kind of like words of two even three syllables. And especially admire the great poets of Tin Pan Alley.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I just realized we've got a Noam Chomsky thread going at the moment as well. I'm sure he'd find both threads amusing.</p>

<p>But I do have a movie to recommend, especially for those of us who remember the 60s. It's called <a href="http://www.magpictures.com/bestofenemies/"><em>Best of Enemies</em></a>, a documentary about the debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley. Two unapologetic intellectuals whose facility with language and all its nuances was masterful. It's well worth seeing, both as a reminder of the times—especially as we're coming into primary season here in the states and their debates took place in 1968, the same years as the violent Chicago Democratic Convention—and to see the power of language, in their mouths almost being used as a weapon. A very compelling film.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>In regard to films involving discussion and language, see the english translation of Arcand's "The Decline of the American Empire".</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>There's always some noise and maybe I've just become good at filtering it out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I'm in NYC. I'm good at filtering it too, but I think it is there. It doesn't really worry me, I find it amusing at times, only rarely illuminating. I personally think people tend to spend too much time reading the plaques and the artist's statement, rather than looking at the images and deciding themselves what they think. I usually appreciate the art I look at, but I find the "explanations" and the "desire to explain" rather tedious.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Well, then, what we seem to have are artist's statements that are <em>"</em><em>full of mumbo jumbo and/or pretentious twaddle"</em> and yet <em>"people tend to spend too much time reading the plaques and the artist's statement."</em><br>

<br>

So these people who are doing the reading are probably not feeling disenfranchised, as Tim is or claims, because they seem perfectly willing to spend their time reading the mumbo jumbo twaddle. <br>

<br>

Maybe it's not as mumbo-ee jumbo-ee as you think since, as you note, people are occupying their time with it.<br>

<br>

It's funny that the writers of these statements and art criticism in general have been accused in this very thread of being elitist in the way they write. Well, couldn't your position be seen as elitist, claiming all these people are spending too much time reading what you consider nonsense?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.'<br>

- George Orwell, <em>Politics and the English Language</em><br>

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the point at which families begin to gather again beneath their atavistic roofs and the neighborhood sounds with women's voices crying the names of children."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How do roofs revert to something ancient and ancestral, Phil? Is that a description of what they look like or what they're turning into or their current condition? Let's see...their roofs reverted to being ancient and ancestral. I don't get it.<br>

Either the definition is convoluted or Szarkowski's use of it in that sentence is a poor choice with regard to effective communication.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>It's funny that the writers of these statements and art criticism in general have been accused in this very thread of being elitist in the way they write.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not elitist, just out of touch with modern styles of communicating. </p>

<p>Most of the public is educated enough to the point their living standards have been raised and their lives enriched, the primary reason for having them educated in the first place making such ancient shorthand ornate writing style unnecessary and quite useless to them. It's being left in the dust as society moves forward.</p>

<p>Now these educated folks have developed their own shorthand writing style that they're quite comfortable and proficient with in getting to the point much clearer and quicker using modern technology. They don't need to have things explained or expressed to them using a writing style very few understand or even have to time to read.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>I just skip over any words with more than 2 syllables.</p>

[lynnthomas]

I had to write a statement for my website. I have the website only because

some competitions ask for a link to your website in the submission process.

 

I struggled quite a bit in trying to come up with something that explains why I photograph what I do. How do I

explain why I'm drawn to street photography? How do I explain why I chose to photograph a certain scene or

person? I consider myself to be fairly educated but translating my feelings into words that make sense is a

tremendous struggle. I have read artist statements that sounded fluffy and I thought, well that's just the way

they're supposed to be. But it didn't feel right and I couldn't come up with anything that made any sense.

 

So I just ended up writing something short followed by another short bio paragraph.

 

I liked Winogrands approach. Simple and to the point.

[art_thomas1]

<p>I'll go with George Orwell. </p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Fred, there's no sense trying to convince Robin that his position is wrong. He has a right to his opinion (one that I share by the way), just as you have a right to your opinion. In the end, that's all it is, your opinion, his opinion, and my opinion.<br /> <br /> I find Robin's statements clear and concise. You seem to find them annoying because they conflict w/ your thinking. That's your stuff. The fact that I find his wording clear, concise, and in sync w/ my thinking, is my stuff. We all have our stuff. It's OK.<br /> <br /> Pretentious double talk just about sums up the state of the art world today, along w/ a lot of weak art. Hence the need to explain it. If the work can't get the artist's statement or meaning across (and who's to say that it has to have any meaning anyway?), then it has failed. I've been actively producing paintings, prints, and photographs for over half a century now, and I understand the gallery culture and art world as well as anyone. None of that helps if I produce something that has to be explained w/ an artistic statement because the work can't do it on it's own. In the end, who cares what the artist thinks? That's for the galleries to hype up.It's all about the image, period.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, I was suggesting the statements Robin made were in conflict with each other, therefore illogical. If people are spending a lot of time reading something then, to them, it is not mumbo jumbo. If Robin thinks it is . . . fine. But why make that decision for others who are obviously getting something out of it? That's all. What Robin wants to do is up to Robin. It was Robin who was judging others for reading the stuff. I think your beef is with Robin if your concern is letting people do what they want to do.</p>

<p>Same goes for you. People seem to like reading stuff in galleries. Just who are you to tell them what they're doing is wrong? It seems you're the one who doesn't understand art if you think it has to stand on its own. Because most people want to read something about it and most galleries want to offer some explanations about it, especially when there's a conceptual element which there often is. That's not something so new. I think, if nothing else, you should recognize that your view is the eccentric one.</p>

<p>This thread is simply part of what's become a pattern on the Internet. Let's all high five each other on what fools others are so we can feel better about ourselves. We'll put together some sort of book that we think makes others look stupid, like a book of artist statements we can all laugh at, or a photo book of fat people going to Walmart. I grow weary of it.</p>

<p>The funny thing is I'm asking simply that we respect other humans and I'm the one who's seen as being judgmental. It's like a religious zealot telling me I have to uphold his religious liberty which allows him to be a bigot. Sorry, but I don't have to tolerate all opinions, especially those that seek to make other artists fools in an attempt to somehow make themselves feel better.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>I'm off to work so cannot spend a lot of time, but a quick thought. This discussion could probably benefit from a few more specific examples. I have seen statements which support Tim and Steve and Robin. And Ihave seen statements which would support Anders, Fred, and me in our belief that <em>sometimes</em> a statement is beneficial. Yes, you can decide for yourself about a particular work, or body of work, but a statement can help point someone in a different direction. Like looking at painting (cannot think of who its by,a Renn master?) called "Vanity". The docent explained some of the shapes and symbolism in what appeared to be a straightforward portrait of a woman. Understanding what the docent said gave more understa;nind.</p>

[Brad_]

<blockquote>

<p>>>> I struggled quite a bit in trying to come up with something that explains why I photograph what I do. How do I explain why I'm drawn to street photography? How do I explain why I chose to photograph a certain scene or person? I consider myself to be fairly educated but translating my feelings into words that make sense is a tremendous struggle. I have read artist statements that sounded fluffy and I thought, well that's just the way they're supposed to be. But it didn't feel right and I couldn't come up with anything that made any sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here, Lynn. My "Statement" (I don't use the phrase Artist Statement, or identify as an artist - "photographer" works fine) is one to three sentences, depending on the situation, clearly written in plain language. People have commented how refreshing it is, and how it so well describes what my street photography is about.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm off to work so cannot spend a lot of time, but a quick thought. This discussion could probably benefit from a few more specific examples. I have seen statements which support Tim and Steve and Robin. And I have seen statements which would support Anders, Fred, and me in our belief <strong>that <em>sometimes</em> a statement is beneficial.</strong> Yes, you can decide for yourself about a particular work, or body of work, but a statement can help point someone in a different direction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to clarify, since Steve seems to not have time enough to read what I wrote, I did not say I was against including an artist statement and that it is not beneficial to the viewer of a work of art.</p>

<p>I just want an artist statement that communicates effectively to a broad audience so many can benefit instead of a small number of intellectuals who can understand academically styled writing which does not automatically guarantee effective communication even to academicians.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with Tim. I have never said an artist's statement is universally pointless. My objection is that the language frequently used is of absolutely no assistance to understanding the artist, except to those who enjoy trying to make sense of convoluted English sentences.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>My objection is that the language frequently used is of absolutely no assistance to understanding the artist, except to those who enjoy trying to make sense of convoluted English sentences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which, according to you, is a lot of people at the galleries you attend. So it turns out you're the odd-man-out here! Which in a world of reason might lead you to wonder why you're the one not understanding what you read (or possibly what you HAVEN'T read), since all the others seem to be wanting to read it because they are getting something out of it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Robin, on the one hand, you say the English sentence structure is so convoluted as to be impossible to understand and on the other hand you claim that people are reading it instead of making up their own minds. Well, if they're doing that, chances are their mind is being made up by the writer because, in fact, they DO understand something, something you'd rather they not understand because you want them to make up their own minds.</p>

<p>But the worse flaw in this logic is that you're assuming that more information, more thoughts about art, more historical and aesthetic background, more suggestions of nuanced readings—which is often what one reads on these plaques—is somehow impinging on the reader's ability to make up their own mind. I never found that MORE KNOWLEDGE or MORE INFORMATION or MORE POSSIBILITIES of interpretation impinged on my ability to make up my own mind. Putting my head in the sand was never a way for me to become more enlightened or form a more well-rounded opinion.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Which, according to you, is a lot of people at the galleries you attend. So it turns out you're the odd-man-out here!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's your opinion, Fred. Not a fact. You don't have any verifiable stats that indicates any number of people can understand or not understand academically styled writing. </p>

<p>There is one fact that remains made obvious in this thread in that those that can understand it have to employ much more words in explaining it and actually wind up doing a bad job of it at best to those who can't understand that style of writing.</p>

<p>You either can communicate as a writer or you can't. It's the responsibility of the writer to insure that or else they'll have very few readers. That's a fact if one wants to be heard by many instead of a few.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, there's a bunch of people, according to Robin, reading these plaques and Robin is afraid their minds are being made up by reading them. This is not a matter of fact or no fact. It's a matter of logic. If Robin concludes that their minds are being swayed by what they're reading, then it follows they would have had to understand something in what was written in order to be swayed by it. Implied in their being swayed is at least a degree of understanding enough to be swayed or unduly influenced. That means they have a leg up on Robin, who claims not to understand the stuff s/he seems to know is unduly influencing others.</p>

<p>By they way, you do realize what you're saying is not anything resembling facts either, right?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In other words, Tim, I'm not discussing the <em>fact</em> of whether these people understand what they're reading or not, facts which could be determined by the kind of stats you're in search of. I'm discussing the <em>logic</em> of Robin's statement that they don't understand the thing that is supposedly making up their minds for them.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Sorry for the misunderstanding, Fred. I was going by Robin's last statement you replied to which didn't come across as you pointing out illogical points in his/her previous comments. I took Robin's last post as a summation of all what he/she said previously.</p>

<p>I still don't know whether Robin is a woman or a man. Robin's PN profile doesn't give any indication either.</p>