Writing about Art
As a start for my Contextual and Critical Studies I had to answer the following questions with support from selected reading. I wanted to share my response with you.
What is the role of reading (or doing) “theory” for you?
How do you (want to) talk & write about art & design?
Reading and theory is the basis of knowledge that experimentation can be built upon as boundaries can’t be broken/pushed if they haven’t been set in the first place. I can make conscious decisions once I know a certain piece of history or a technique. This knowledge should be accessible and clear and that is the way I personally write about art and design. I want to be open and clearly state my opinions, however trying to dive into the context to understand what the original purpose was and meaning of a piece.
When writing about art I tend to be very subjective at times, and since my knowledge isn’t extensive, I don’t believe that I write using technical vocabulary and necessarily open to others intentions/opinions. Personally, I agree with Salle that many critics and reviews focus on the intentions and ideas behind a piece rather than the outcome. This is a very important part for me as I believe skill is the basis of art and the context is only a trigger/supportive part. Within the contemporary world, Art is spoke of through the lense of political importance and ideas rather than technical uses of materials and physical skill. Compared to this journalistic approach I combine both as they are dependent on one another.
Boris Groys states that there are two ways on which art can influence the world. On the one hand, you can open the art up to the public by creating work that the audience will like, and the art will spread allowing the messages presented to submerge its surroundings. Other way would be to create against the approval of society, presenting a new community and an alternative for those that seek it. Depending on what type of artist you want to be, that will effect how you present your work and write about it.
Art has its own purpose, in my opinion. It is for people not only acting as the audience but also as the creators. As stated by in Art on my mind “home is not a place but a condition – felt only when there is freedom of movement and expression.” That is a state that wants to be achieved by many. Art is what allows for that to happen, through the journey of contextual development within a theme. As written by Bell Hooks, Carrie Mae Weems uses art to bring forward issues with white supremacy as well as using the process as a means of learning as it ‘turns a strange context into a familiar one’ as proclaimed by Mary Catherine Bateson. The text can support the work, provide facts, opinions, statistics and further detail on what can already be seen within artwork. However, Ken Price’s words stick out to me: “Nothing I can say is going to improve how it looks.” when speaking of written text in support of an artists piece.
The work should be enough to stand alone, and the words that come alongside it should only deepen what was already established by the piece. Therefore, Critics and theorists could use that rule (or suggestion) as inspiration for their way of writing: delving into the aesthetic, whilst exploring the context alongside it and distinguishing the connections. The language they use should be one that too will ‘turn a strange context into a familiar one’ but through words.
The Gab Eye
Ps. I will be exploring these texts further and diving into the topic of: Intent VS Physical Outcome so these topics will be expanded!