It's well known by now that I've had a difficult time obtaining digital images from the current show at McLean Project for the Arts. I sent an email explaining the situation to each of the artists. Alyson Weege responded with two emails, one with images attached and another with her Web site address. I'm not sure if she understands the seriousness of this event. Regardless, I'm going to post images of the two paintings she has in the show.
Weege's work interested me a great deal. Each painting squeezes in an enormous amount of content, both compositionally and narratively. Her paintings remind me of Julee Holcombe's digital images shown at Conner Contemporary Art this past summer. While the actual content/story in Weege's paintings doesn't interest me much, you can't help but admire her ability as a painter. Weege's paintings force you to give them some time. For me, that alone is quite an accomplishment. If I understood the complete narration in each painting I'm sure I would like the work even more.
Hero
Butterfly Girl
I like them quite a lot; I am glad she sent you the images...
Posted by: Lenny | Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 10:41 AM
These digital images make me wish I could see the paintings in person - I like what I see so far. It doesn't matter if I understand it (the narrative) all at once. That's what spending time with the painting is all about - gleaning new insights with each viewing. I paint narrative works myself, and I'm very curious about the "please explain it to me" reactions of many people. Can you respond on that issue? Do you need more or less explanatory info about abstract work,or conceptual work? And why? Thanks.
Posted by: Anna L. Conti | Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 11:52 AM
Hi Anna! Thanks for writing!
The thing about narrative works is that clearly there is a story that is being told. In these two paintings Weege is using a great deal of symbolism. I'm not so much asking Weege to explain it to me as wishing I had more knowledge about the symbolism she is using. I think the explanation in this case could come from anyone with a broad knowledge of symbolism, or at least the symbolism being employed by Weege. I still enjoy the paintings, but my understanding of them would be enhanced by this knowledge. I guess it could be up for debate if I would enjoy the paintings more with this understanding.
I feel like narrative works encourage viewers to ask for meaning because they (viewers) can recognize the objects in the painting. And unless it is a still-life, the viewer wants to know why this scene, why this composition, etc. Viewers feel like they can almost understand it, but they want some help. As evidenced by Weege's paintings, there is an enormous amount of symbolism. It's like a puzzle, and the viewer wants to solve it.
When it comes to abstract or conceptual art, the most valid explanation comes from the artist. The thing I like about abstract art is that almost any perception of the work is valid. To understand the intent of the artist, you must ask them. But I find that any number of interpretations can be valid... at least in terms of enjoying the work.
As for conceptual art, I am of the opinion that it should be mostly self-explanatory. Successful conceptual art, to me, is clear in communicating the concept. The viewer may need to ask the artist for context or why it is significant to the artist, but otherwise I feel it should be clear. I don't see how conceptual art can be any other way.
Another way for me to think about it is that a viewer can see in Butterfly Girl that the girl seems to be eating a butterfly. Why? That is the question that comes to mind. In abstract art, that first question seems to be what? What is it "supposed" to be? But viewers can try to answer this themselves. I see a flower. Or I see a dog. Or I see death. Etc. I think the ability to recognize things in narrative works provokes the questions on meaning. The viewer wants more from it. It isn't enough to see the butterfly on the plate with a fork. Why is it there?
Not sure if this answers your questions, I wrote this very fast, perhaps too fast.
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland | Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 12:18 PM
JT,
I am thrilled to see you wrote about some work from the MPA show. Glad to see you also included a link to the site!
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa Bertnick | Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 08:08 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you're right to separate understanding and enjoyment. They're often, but not always connected. I also agree with you on conceptual art - if it's not clear in communicating the concept to most viewers, then it fails as a work of art.
But I disagree with your view that narrative works "encourage viewers to ask for meaning" whereas, with abstract art, "almost any perception of the work is valid."
When an artist paints a narrative, using conscious or subconscious symbolic elements, it doesn't necessarily mean that the image is a map to a specific destination, or a puzzle to be solved.
To ask a representational artist "why" is like asking an abstract artist "what," and demonstrates the viewer's unwillingness or inability to explore the possibilities.
Yes, a greater knowlege of symbolic systems might assist the viewer's understanding of a painting. Likewise, more information about the artist can be useful. Jeanette Winterson, in her book "Art Objects", makes a case for "learning the language of art." she says, "Art, all art, not just painting is a foreign city, and we deceive ourselves when we we think it familiar. No one is surprised to find a foreign city follows its own customs and speaks its own language. Only a boor would ignore both and blame his defaulting on the place. Every day this happens to the artist and the art."
But, as I tried to say in my blog a couple of weeks ago (Sept. 15 & 16), you can go too far with the explanations. A pre-packaged tour of a foreign city can result in perceptions that are no more accurate than the ones gathered by the unprepared tourist who stumbles around on his own.
No matter if the painting is abstract, representational, narrative or whatever - some viewers are going to want a guided tour and some are going to go off-trail by themselves.The difference is in the viewer, not the art.
Posted by: Anna L. Conti | Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 11:58 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that the presence of symbolic elements doesn't necessarily mean the image is a map or puzzle. I never said that. All I meant was that the presence of those types of elements (intended or not, present or not) encourage the viewer to ask why. They want to understand what is there because to them there may be more to it. Take your recent painting of what appears to be a warehouse space. A viewer may be encouraged to ask what it means (your intent) because they aren't able to see anything else in it. For me, I just see a space and it looks like the focus of the piece is on the mood of the space (i.e. lighting, loneliness). But there may be more to the piece than I am getting. The only way for me to know is to ask. My interpretation is fine, and I enjoy the piece, but it may not be your intent. How should I ever know your intent?
Of course a lot of people want a quick explanation no matter what the work is. They aren't willing to give it thought. But others do give it thought and still come up empty. Instead of not knowing for the rest of their life, why not ask the artist?
You're wrong though, people asking why or what does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to explore the possibilities. It demonstrates that the viewer wants to understand the artist's intent. And this is fine. Otherwise there would be no art history classes or art books. You have to go to the source to accurately understand the artists intent. Would you say you understand my intent on every piece of art I've shown on this site? If not, does that demonstrate an inability on your part to explore the possibilities? How are you supposed to know my intent? Maybe ask me?
And I'm not sure about your foreign city analogy. If the tour is pre-packaged by the artist, how can it possibly be less accurate than the viewer just making guesses about meaning. Personally I don't always want the pre-packaged tour, but accuracy isn't the issue. Instead, I sometimes want to make up my own story because it's likely more interesting. Going back to Weege's work, it looks great to me visually, but I don't know what it means. I don't HAVE to know the meaning, but what is wrong with me asking? Asking the artist is the most accurate way to find out the intended meaning.
And I disagree, on a whim, that the difference is in the viewer, not the art. You may be right, but without empirical data we are both just guessing. I think the ability to readily recognize subject matter is a key part of the equation. Narrative works (representational) clearly have a story to tell. If the viewer doesn't get the story, or doesn't know if they get the story, they are likely to want the truth. Think about this... how many college students understand the meaning of William Faulkner's writing? I've been in many classes where students ask and ask about meaning. And students get tested on the subject matter. Writing is much less ambiguous than painting... how could there not be questions about meaning in narrative painting? Though I don't understand all of Faulkner, I still enjoyed his writing. But I didn't ace my tests. Meaning is significant!
Maybe it's just me. I rarely question abstract, non-represenational or conceptual art. I do find myself questioning representational pieces (including narratives). I guess I want more from them, or I feel more is there I'm missing.
Not everyone gets it or wants to try to get it. But I am more than happy to share my ideas with a viewer if that expands their understanding of my art, and perhaps art in general.
I think we all want answers. You read the book "Art Objects" for some reason, right? You wanted enhanced understanding of a topic. It's my stance, totally unsubstantiated, that more viewers question narrative works because they feel they can, and because they feel they need to... generally it's more accessible. If a lot of people are asking though, maybe it suggests the narrative isn't very clear. Who knows? I doubt any of us do.
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland | Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 09:19 PM
" Narrative works (representational) clearly have a story to telI."
Hi JT,
I think it is a fundamental mistake to equate representational artwork with narrative. They are two completely separate things that interact in millions of different ways.
"You're wrong though, people asking why or what does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to explore the possibilities. It demonstrates that the viewer wants to understand the artist's intent. And this is fine. Otherwise there would be no art history classes or art books. You have to go to the source to accurately understand the artists intent. Would you say you understand my intent on every piece of art I've shown on this site? If not, does that demonstrate an inability on your part to explore the possibilities? How are you supposed to know my intent? Maybe ask me?"
And I also think you are putting a weird and final emphasis on the artist's intent. Surely you would prefer images to open up meaning rather than clamp down to the artist's intent. Surely as an artist you would prefer your work to exceed your intentions. This position undermines the authority of artworks and reduces a possibly fecund and imaginative role for the viewer as interpreter to that of reader of and believer in artist statements. The viewer may have questions but they won't be critical ones.
Posted by: J at simpleposie | Friday, October 01, 2004 at 01:04 PM
I don't equate narrative and representational works. Clearly not all representational works are narrative (still life for example). However, in my experience most narrative works are representational. A case could be made that all works are narratives, but for my argument I wanted to talk about narrative works that are represenational because they contain elements easily accessible by the common viewer. Easy accessibility brings up more questions on meaning... in my view.
I wouldn't say I want my work to exceed my intent. Instead I am happy if viewers find lots of meaning in my work. That's great. I believe the artist's intent is a sacred and immensely important thing. It's what separates artists from people who paint. My point was based on accuracy... accuracy of understanding the artist's intent. As a viewer I come up with tons of stories and meanings for the art I see. Just read my reviews for evidence of that. But I may ask the artist for their intent/meaning because I may not "get" it. I feel that to truly understand a work of art that context is incredibly important. It's not necessary, but for me it is valuable. Opening up meaning is great, but that doesn't get me closer to the artist. Context is important. I believe viewers should have an imagintive role in art viewing... and they should intepret for themselves. But if they want to know the artist's intent they should ask. It's like saying we shouldn't care what was in Picasso's mind, or Pollock, or van Gogh, etc. There is more to them than just the paintings. How do we get there?
A work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist. I want to get into the mind. There's more there.
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland | Friday, October 01, 2004 at 08:40 PM
"A work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist. I want to get into the mind. There's more there."
I admire your tenacity in this JT.
Let me just play devil's advocate again. If the work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist and the real or ultimate pursuit - the object of "thinking about art", where does that leave the artwork? Doesn't this mode of operations, this rush for insight into the mind of the artist negate the possibility of resting with the work itself? Doesn' t it spell the end of empathy with the little dejeuner pappillon, when you've got to get back on the highway and head willy nilly toward the factory that produced it?
Posted by: J at simpleposie | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 09:20 AM
Interesting discussion. I'll throw in my two cents. I don't think it's necessary to understand the artist's intent to understand the meaning or intent of the artwork, but it can sometimes help. If you become too obsessed with it, though, I think it can hurt because often I think the artist may not themselves be aware of the intent of their artwork. In fact, I think that's probably the case with most good art.
I am a photographer, and while I don't claim to be making great art, I have noticed that my most successful pieces are those that I myself have to struggle to figure out their meaning. They resonate for me but I don't know why. That is really most of the fun of photography for me -- creating images that resonate and then, over the course of months or years, figuring out why. And my sense is that if it resonates for me, it oftens resonate for others because it touches some shared experiences or symbols.
I thus don't like talking about the intent of the artist, at least not for myself, but rather the intent of the artwork. In some sense, I believe the artwork creates itself and has its own intent, which may be very different from the intent of the artist. Knowing what the artist was trying to do may be helpful, informative, etc., but also can be very limiting and get in the way of really grappling with the intent of the artwork on its own terms.
Posted by: Scott | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 10:50 AM