I’m tempted to read this paragraph from Jonathan Jones in the Guardian at least three times before each and every artist statement I have to write:
It is a vice of second-rate art to come with its own eloquent explanation attached. If an artist can translate the meaning and purpose of a work into easily understandable words, it means one of two things. Either the artist is lying, in order to ease the way with patrons and funders; or the artist is a fool. And if dishonesty is the reason, that too is something that vitiates art. No serious art is easy to interpret. Nor is there ever a single valid interpretation of art. If art is good, there are many things to be said about it and much that will remain unsayable.
I don’t particularly hold with much he is saying in it – especially the underlying endorsement of artspeak – but it is an elegant mantra to chant while beating a blank piece of paper into submission.
On the subject of artspeak, Paddy Johnson has a good critique in the L Magazine.
Mantra
I’m tempted to read this paragraph from Jonathan Jones in the Guardian at least three times before each and every artist statement I have to write:
I don’t particularly hold with much he is saying in it – especially the underlying endorsement of artspeak – but it is an elegant mantra to chant while beating a blank piece of paper into submission.
On the subject of artspeak, Paddy Johnson has a good critique in the L Magazine.