Tyler Green on Artist Statements

It's true... I have no interesting, original content today. Must go see more shows.

In the meantime, from Tyler Green's Q&A posted here, I wanted to pull out something I totally agree with:

6. Visual artists have increasingly provided dense texts to be read by viewers in order to explain their work. When does the visual then become the literary? Shouldn't visual art be something to be experienced visually?

Yes. Blame art schools, which require artists to produce statements and such. Then blame galleries for including artist statements in press releases/etc. Written artists’ statements are a total waste of time. When an artist receives his/her BA or MFA, he/she should be required to burn anything resembling a written artist’s statement. An artist’s statement is his/her work.

The more I read artist statements the more I hate them. They rarely say anything that couldn't be summed up in 10 words or less, or by looking at the artist's Web site. If your work can't say it on its own, then that's the problem. If your work becomes widely seen, every viewer of it will not have a copy of your artist statement in their back pocket so that they can understand.

This is my artist statement.

Of course though, if a submission for a show or grant requires a statement, one should be sent. After all, you gotta play the game by the rules... sometimes.

Comments

[George]

Four thousand words, it's too long. LOL

[J.T. Kirkland]

It took me a long time to get that, George. A picture is worth a thousand words. Four pictures. 4000 words. Got it!

That was funny!

[AMW]

I hate artist statements too. Too many artists seem to think of an artist statement as a way of proving that they are an intellectual, and cram as many big words into as small a space as possible. In my experience, most artists really suck at writing, but have convinced themselves that they are Marcel Proust and need to club the hapless viewer/reader in the face with impenetrable prose.

I hate writing artist statements, invariably I look back at one I actually used for a show and think "Jesus, what asshole wrote this? Oh that's right, it was me."

I think the artist statement has a potential to be useful, as a sneaky way of directing a viewer's thoughts when looking at a piece. One of the problems with them is that they tend to survive as documents long after an exhibition has come off the wall. They should be printed on special paper that disintegrates when the show is over- vanishing in a puff of ozone. Or better yet, be discretely projected on head's up display goggles while the viewer is actually looking at the work, or whispered in the ear by those creepy headsets they have at the National Gallery.

[Erin Antognoli]

Amen! There have actually been times when I look at work and think it's ok, and then read the artist statement and liked the work a whole lot less because of it. Sometimes the ideas just aren't as great as the images, but often it's just because the idea can't really be articulated all that well. Either way, it's unfortunate.

As for my own work, if I could say it better than I could show it, I'd have been a writer. Sheesh. That being said, I guess I should get to work on a statement for my new work. When in Rome and all that crap...

[J.T. Kirkland]

AMW & Erin,

Amen to both of you. I think we should get to work on that paper that self-destructs.

What I find interesting is that rarely, very rarely, does an artist statement add anything to great work. But I've seen lots of time where I wish what was discussed in the statement had been what was created. Meaning, the work doesn't come close to measuring up to the statement.

It reminds me of the Objectives statement on a regular, professional resume. I've spoken to so many people who do the hiring at companies say that never has an Objective made them hire a person but many times it has made them NOT hire a person.

I think artist interviews are the best ways to learn more about the artist and their process. That is, when they aren't as stale as statements. Of course though, I may be a bit biased about that.

Thanks for the comments.

[AAS]

It reminds me of the Objectives statement on a regular, professional resume. I've spoken to so many people who do the hiring at companies say that never has an Objective made them hire a person but many times it has made them NOT hire a person.

Yeah, I do the first screening of all resumes at my office...and my advice is to quickly lose the Objective. The only time it's helpful is for a young recent college grad with little or none professional experience. But once you have your first real job, it should be gone. Sorry that was a bit off topic.

In terms of Artist Statements... what would you call a statement that doesn't so much address the artist's goals, but rather the more technical information and details about the body of work?

[J.T. Kirkland]

AAS -

I for one would love to see some sort of documentation of the artist's biography, technical details, process info, etc. I just don't need some artist to wax poetically about their work. This I wouldn't consider a traditional artist statement (not sure what to call it), but this is information not readily available within the work itself. I see value in it.

The one line in a statement that drives me crazy (and it is almost always the first sentence), is... "My work does A, B, C, etc"

Oh does it? Really? Every time? For every viewer? How does the artist know what it does to me? Some statements assume so much it drives me crazy. I'll decide what the artwork does for me, thank you.

[Jim L]

I think artist statements only really work for me when it is part of a dialogue - i.e. explaining the work's themes in critiques or presentations so that the artist and audience can each learn from the other on how the art is reflecting those themes. This can be valuable in art school when done properly. I very much appreciate the dialogues I had in school when presenting my work and getting feedback or criticism in conjunction with my "talk" of my motives etc.

However, in a gallery setting or in advertising material the statement can be limiting and reductionist to the art or can provoke reactions the artist may not appreciate (like "Dude, shut up!"). There is no dialogue and the statements are imposed on the art. And besides, they are usually so twee.

I really, really like statements that are matter of fact - i.e. "This series came from a residence in Oregon where etc..." or "These paintings are made using MDF board primed with traditional gesso with acrylic underpainting and oil glazes..."

[J.T. Kirkland]

Yep, Jim, I agree. Your first paragraph gets at the artist interview thing I was talking about earlier. Your last paragraph gets at the more factual, technical issues that AAS brought up... things not IN the work.

Thanks!

[Scott]

I like artist statements in concept and sometimes even in practice. When done right, they can be very useful explaining what the artist is trying to do and/or why they are doing it.

The problem is that many statements are really, really bad. Maybe the artist doesn't know what they are doing or why. Or maybe they're just better at the visual stuff.

Rather than get rid of them, though, I'd rather see some training for artists in writing effective statements. I actually think they can be quite useful not only for viewers but also for the artist. It helps to bring clarity to one's own work when you have to crystallize what you're doing in a few sentences or paragraphs. I just wish people could do it without using the word "liminal"!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Good points, Scott.

I think art schools (from what I hear) do actually provide "training" on how to write artist statements. And I've found that when I read an awful, pretentious statement 9 times out of 10 when I look on the resume right there is MFA.

As for crystalizing your thoughts as an artist, is that really the artist's job? Or is it to make art? You've frequently said that you haven't understood why you took a picture until years later. Does that make the image better once you understand it? In my opinion, my job is to drill holes in wood and draw circles on paper. I'll let the viewer, critic, historian, curator, etc, make sense of it and contextualize it. By that point I've done my job.

I do think artists should be able to talk about their work (in a statement, interview, conversation) but I don't think a statement should be a crutch on which the work stands. The statement should stand on the work.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Every time you speak or write about your visual artwork you are making an "Artist Statement". Weather you want to or not. While I agree that "the uber statement" is the work itself, the fact that critics and professors have to communicate they're feelings about art through words forces visual artists to play that word game. Nothing wrong with that. And, of course, your statement can be a statement about statements. Right?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joseph,

Of course you're right. But, and you knew there would be a but, I don't think artists HAVE to play the same word game as critics and professors. I think artists should provide the information that is not IN the artwork (technical, process, biographical, etc). But they should not say "my work does this or that" or "it causes this feeling" or "it's about this." One, the artist has no clue what it does. And two, the artist is biased.

I would love to pull out some examples of what I'm talking about but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I've read some bad ones recently.

Ultimately I don't think I've ever found a statement that has added anything to the work. Perhaps we can dig up some examples of good ones and post them here. In fact, yes, let's do that. If anyone is up for posting their own here, please do.

I'll start. From my last show, a brochure was published. Paul Flippen (the other artist who had a solo) and I included brief "artist statements" at the requestion of the curator. Here they are:

Flippen - "I create visual puzzles. Images build and overlap - circles of intent that clarify their meaning through the accumulation of implications. My paintings are autobiographical, functioning as metaphorical self-portraits that communicate through the layering of associative meaning."

Kirkland - "My work aims to spotlight the inherent beauty of natural wood and the artistic gesture of the hand-drilled hole serves to the pleasure of the wood. The implied frame formed by the holes puts the viewer's focus on nature's beauty; one that cannot be improved upon by man."

Ugh... I wrote that just 2-3 months ago and I already hate it. Of course, I think it does say something about the work which is good, but nothing that isn't already there.

As for Flippen, I'll note that he is a college art professor and that after trying to understand his statement I've concluded that it says he makes art. I think.

If we got rid of the statements we could have had bigger images of our work!! Ha!

Unfortunately, I think they are a necessary evil. I understand why we have them and I understand what purpose they serve broadly... but like slides, I think we should begin trying to get rid of them. Of course, the same goes for lengthy wall text in museums...

[Scott]

"Does that make the image better once you understand it?"

Better for whom? For me, absolutely. When I start to understand the artwork, it's like having one of those "aha" moments. And really good pieces of art keep yielding those "aha" moments as I peel through the layers.

For the viewer, it probably doesn't matter, because they are going to get what they get regardless. However, I do think a good artist statement can help guide the viewer to see what the artist sees and maybe get to that "aha" moment when they might not have otherwise. You may say, "well, they're being lazy and could have got there themselves if they'd have spent a little more time with it." Maybe, but some folks prefer the Cliff Notes.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

You know me well enough to know my response. If the artist statement helps you understand the work better, there's no need to publish it.

Your second point makes more sense to me... if it is well written. And if it doesn't tell the viewer what they should think about the photo. Like I said, if the statement addresses things not in the work itself it would be a huge help. Instead, the statements I find so often tell me what should be in the work but isn't. Or tells me how to view the work. Don't nobody tell me what to do except my mama and my papa!!

[In all honesty I agree with you and Joseph. But I'm taking the issue as black and white in an effort to get rid of the crap. After all, I think what I wrote is crap as a statement. I could have worded it much better. Oh well... it's easier to let the work speak for itself.]

[Robert]

All this seems a whole lot of grousing about a very little thing to me. I don't get it. Some people "get" things in different ways. So as an artist, you have the opportunity to tell them things in different ways.

Yeah, sure, some artists' statements sound over-intellectualized and silly. I can agree with that. But I'm pretty sure turning that into a mass-condemnation of statesments is going too far.

[susan]

truer words have never been spoken. as a gallery owner and an artist i find myself having nightmares which include details from many artists statements i have been "required" to read.
your statement is in a word: refreshing. a visual artist is just that. visual ...
great post.

[J.T. Kirkland]

"But I'm pretty sure turning that into a mass-condemnation of statesments is going too far."

I disagree. I think that everytime I'm in a gallery and I read an awful statement I should take it and rip it into 100 pieces. I've been tempted, but that may be going too far.

Thanks Susan!

[Joseph Barbaccia]

When I created the Flash-based "statement" about my artwork titled Determination, (which you can see and hear at http://www.paradisestudio.com/determination.htm) I had the thought of introducing the piece to a viewer. I attempted to bring attention only to a few aspects of the piece, then hopefully they could continue from there. Whaddia think?

[lily c-r]

"The problem is that many statements are really, really bad."

Sure - the same thing can be said about a lot of art. But, we're not calling for it to be made with self-destructive materials.

Maybe I write the kind of statement that a lot of you hate, but here's a question anyway:

If artist statements drive you crazy, why don't you just stop reading them?

No really, it's an honest question. I know wall text can be hard to avoid (I think that's another conversation anyway), but usually the statement is tucked quietly away in a binder, and can easily be ignored.

I think statements can be really helpful for providing context for the work, especially after the show comes down, and all you have to *look* at is documentation. For example, if you have an installation that is in essence relational, but the viewer can't relate to it because it only exists as a series of images, don't you need some kind of statement to go along with the images?

[lily c-r]

I meant to write "self-destructing" not "self-destructive" materials.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joseph,

You've tweaked that since the last time I saw it. My honest feedback is this. I like it to the extent that it doesn't tell me what I should think of the piece. You describe the work (very literally) and that is straightforward and clear. What I think is best about it is when you talk about and show images of the other similar work. Here, you're providing a context for this one piece and that adds value. That is something we couldn't know just by looking at a single piece.

I'm not sure talking about the realistically painted hand, the hammer handle, the thumbs up/down, etc, are necessary though. They are quite obvious just by looking.

If all "statements" were written in the way you've done this little video, I think us complainers would be a lot happier. I compare your video to what I always tell people when they ask about my work, "I drill holes in wood." What more "statement" does one need?

Lily,

All fair points. The problem with stop reading statements is twofold:

1) Sometimes there are good statements that add to my understanding of the work. I can suffer through 9 bad ones for 1 good one.

2) If I stop reading statements then I am longer informed about statements. I like being able to understand the problem (that I see) and use that information for my own statement.

I'm all for the type of statements you talk about in the last paragraph. Contextualize the work for me without the art history lesson or preaching to me. Tell me what you (the artist) thinks about the work. Don't tell me something as if it's some universal truth. If it's statement about a work which no longer exists except in images, tell me what brought about the work, how it was made, what you felt you were doing, etc. Use clear language. Don't try to impress me with a big vocabulary... I'm judging you on the work, not how well you would do at Scrabble.

I wanted to do a test about statements and went to White Columns' Artist Registry and randomly selected one statement. I've pasted it below. Surprisingly, this is a pretty good statement. I find only two parts that I question and they are in bold.

"I depict functional objects when they are not in use and put them to use through sculpture. Objects are selected and arranged according to their visual relationships as shapes, colors and sizes. I consider how they have come to be and how they are typically thought of: bricks are stacked in large numbers one by one, tennis balls bounce and arc, two by fours are joined and erected. I try to capture some of this action in a formalist spirit while presenting these active things at rest.
Constructing each component with materials such as papier-mâché, aqua-resin, plaster, and paint enables me to personalize them or manipulate their scale. Craft techniques become subject matter as basket weaving or the stringing of pearls are mimicked but not done quite right. The transformation of the model object gains another generation from its root as a natural, handmade, or factory made item.

I use drawing as a tool for preliminary studies and also make drawings that stand on their own. Potted plants, chimneys, trees and stone walls are commonly found. Abstract shapes cut out of cardboard or paper are painted, braided, or crumpled then glued together. As an extension of my sculpture they are a collection of compositions reflective of our material world."

Really though, this isn't half bad.

I think this is a fruitful conversation. Thanks!

[J.T. Kirkland]

I'm piling on now, and copping way too much content from Mr. Winkleman, but as part of his post today he provided an anecdote that I felt fit right in with this discussion:

"There's a lesson about art I learned from the dealer I consider my first mentor that I'll never forget. When a client asked him why a rather pricey Diebenkorn etching was so special, he responded quite emphatically "Just look at it!" Indeed. That's all there is really. Walking around the third floor at the Whitney, that's all one needs to do to be enthralled...just look at the work."

The dealer could have contextualized, rationalized, and justified the Diebenkorn but instead told his client just to look at it. And I'm quite sure the dealer could have Scrabble-ized a profound response. But when the work is good and says it all, it's unnecessary.

I wonder if they bought the etching...

[Robert]

I'll bow out of this piling-on with this final statement: I still fail to see why so-called "bad" artists' statements are such a big deal. Some of them sound pseudo-intellectual, I get that. In fact, I'd agree with many of the comments here that the majority of the statements don't add much (for me). But I guess I fail to see why this is a big deal. Not much of the art I look at -really- sticks with me, so it's of no surprise when the statements don't either.

I just see a lot otherwise-useful energy being spent on the hatred of some artists' statements. Seems like a lot of negative energy being produced that could be used better, elsewhere. Make your own statement as good or as small or as big as you want. Does it really matter if someone elses' doesn't read like you'd want it to?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Robert,

When I post these comments it's during brief breaks from curing cancer and ridding the world of hunger. Just let me have a little fun, ok? Can't be Mother Theresa all the time, it's tiring.

Seriously, the reason it is a big deal is because there is so much potential there to add value to the art of an individual and the world at large. Yeah, I said it! This post has generated 20+ comments now and I bet at least one person has modified their statement as a result and for the better. That's good enough for me. Have you emailed Ed Winkleman and suggested he's wasting his time? After all, who cares if people have bad artist resumes, right? As long as mine as good that's all that matters!

What I find most amusing is that you're using otherwise-useful energy to tell me I'm wasting my otherwise-useful energy.

OK, back to solving the crisis of global warming...