My interest in
photography and all things creative allows me to read thousands of
website spiels, blogs, artist profiles, and yes; even those dreadful
"artist's statements".
Unfortunately, the
vast majority of what I read, is quite frankly, pretentious waffle: gobbledygook, the worst of which would put school headmasters,
university lecturers and new age prime ministers to shame.
(It seems that
mention of prime ministers may be apt, as many “artists”,
especially photographers and strangely, models have found the word
“artist” too egotistically limiting, and have decided to position
themselves among politicians and reluctant movie stars, and call
themselves “public figures”....pretentious waffle meets
delusional stupidity.
The usual excuse of
course is I am a visual person, not verbal, which is a variation on
the old pretense about left brain /right brain, or I can't think
business because I am an artist, and in itself one great heap of BS.
Just about the
entire population has been through primary school, and as a result
the majority of us, even artists, are able to construct a meaningful
sentence to communicate some information which can be relatively
easily understood. But yes, it does require thought and a little
effort...two qualities seemingly lacking in many artists and much of
their art.
OK, so a visual work
of art doesn’t need words to explain it, or at least
shouldn’t...however websites, catalogues, profiles, press releases,
advertising, marketing, even facebook comments and twitter tweets, as
well as all those other written pieces of information necessary to an
artist's life, do need words. And with the sheer numbers of self
styled “artists” swanning around these days, probably the most
creative and productive thing any artist could do to set them apart
from the wannabes, would be to stop trying to live the “image” of
the artist..a pretentious myth which never existed in the idealised
past, but which has become the holy grail for all except the those
few with actual talent.
It would seem the
less actual talent possessed, or the greater the unwillingness to
develop any talent possessed, or even the more averse to work: the
greater desire to project and immerse oneself into mythical
existence as an "artist"
Gilda Williams in
her book, “How to Write About Contemporary Art”, while talking
about how “Art English” arose, which quickly degenerated into
“Art Gibberish”, sums up her observations in regards to these
attempts at communication:
Good
art-writers, despite countless differences, essentially follow the
same patterns:
+ their
writing is clear, well structured, and carefully worded;
+ the
text is imaginative, brimming with spicy vocabulary, and full of
original ideas, which are substantiated in their experience and
knowledge of art;
+ they
describe what the art is; explain plausibly what it may mean; and
suggest how this might connect to the world at large.
Inexperienced
art-writers repeat similar mistakes:
+ their
writing is waffly, poorly structured, and jargoned;
+ their
vocabulary is unimaginative, their ideas undeveloped, their logic
flawed, and their knowledge patchy;
+ assumptions
are not grounded in the experience of art, which is ignored;
+ they
fail to communicate believably the claimed meaning behind
contemporary art, or its relation to the rest of the world.
So if, as a visual
artist, your words have shown signs of falling into bad habits of
pretentiousness and waffle, of non communication, of gobbledygook,
“How to Write About Contemporary Art”
would be well worth a read.
©Copyright: Stephen Bennett, 2016
