Art Shouldn’t Require Explanation!
Sunday, 29. May 2011 23:46
Last weekend I attended the opening reception for the Kinsey Institute Juried Art Show 2011. There were a number of interesting things about the show, but one of the things that struck me most was the differences in the title cards that were mounted near each piece. I suppose that is to be expected; since the show is an international juried show, the artists would have diverse opinions about what constituted a proper label for their pieces. (As some of you know, artist statements and titles are topics that I have discussed before.)
Some title cards were very simple: the name of the piece, the year of creation, the name and location of the artist. That was all. Several of those titles were interesting or clever and did, in some instances, add to the meaning of the piece; others were obvious, and may as well have been “untitled,” a label that was also used.
Some added details about the work, commenting on materials and processes. These did not add to the meaning of the work, but were interesting and informative.
Others consisted of very long paragraphs (that was all the room there was—all the cards were single-sized) that explained the work. In a few cases, I had to look back at the work and then re-read the explanation because I was pretty sure that the words had nothing to do with what I was seeing in the piece.
Finally there were the longest ones which included a somewhat general statement about human sexuality and the repression or suppression or celebration thereof, which seemed sort of gratuitous, given the context of the show. These were more general artist’s statements that did not aid in understanding the pieces or add to their meaning, but were things that the artist needed to say.
Some have observed that the artist statement gives the artist the opportunity to extend the work, to convey even more meaning. And background on the piece is often useful in understanding the milieu that produced it. But it seems that unless the art is designed to be part image, part text, as in the work of Taryn Simon, the fact that it needs explanation suggests that the piece is weak or somehow lacking. Just as the playwright who demands that there be voluminous program notes explaining the play is acknowledging his/her play’s weakness, so is the visual artist who has to rely on words to make his/her statement. Those artists who really have a need for text should consider blogging or at least a Facebook page.
Additionally, what happens if the little card falls off the wall? What if someone looking at the piece and the card can’t speak the language on the card? What if the viewer neglects to read the artist’s statement? Can the audience not enjoy the play if the programs and notes don’t get printed? There are all sorts of issues connected with art that requires explanation.
All these issues are resolved, however, if the art work, whether it is photograph, painting, sculpture, play, poem, novel, is be complete in itself—without props or explanations or apologies. While explication can, at times, expand or enrich a piece, art must be able to stand on its own.
Category:Audience, Communication | Comment (0) | Author: Jay Burton