I’ve never needed an artist’s statement professionally. Probably I never will – I have no ambition to do the sorts of things that require them. However, if I did need one, I know I would have great difficulty in getting away with my working statement: This is what I saw. Even if I stretch that out into longhand – these photographs are representations, to the best of my ability, of what I saw – I only get to fourteen words.
I’ve updated my photo home page.
I’m writing about this again now, because I was recently asked by Lisa Call to explain what I meant when I said “art isn’t about communication. I am trying to communicate nothing. This is just what I saw.” Specifically she said “Colin could you expand on these comments? It is what you saw – but you put it here for us to see and to react to. Isn’t that a form of communication?”.
Now, I’ve had enough debates about the communication thing to know that, er, some of you disagree with me (one part of the debate is archived here, and I wrote an article which is here). I’ve no particular desire to go over that ground again, because it seemed to me that it was a matter of belief, and beliefs are not challenged by arguments. What I want to try to do here is to answer Lisa’s question in practical terms.
It is a fair question. If I’m not communicating when I put one of my pictures on display, then what am I doing?
I need to invoke a level one cut-off. I am saying here is a photograph. I think that that is about as uninteresting as communication can get, and even if I didn’t say it, the photograph would sort of say it for me. Please ignore this level.
What am I doing?
My photo home page has contained the following statement for some time: “I’m showing them to help create a dialogue, and with the hope that they may raise a smile, create an understanding or just generally do some good, some how, some where.” There are two parts to this, which I’ll deal with in reverse order:
a) smiles, understandings, and good: this is the altruism motive. I go to places like this every day for enjoyment. You post. I post. We both smile. I don’t think that this needs further explanation.
b) creating a dialogue: this is the potentially confusing area. I want to hear what you think about my photos. Not whether you think that they are sharp enough or whether the sky is blue enough – there is a place for that, but web reproductions aren’t usually worth the effort. No, I want to hear about what they make you think. I do this for purely selfish reasons, because some of you, some times, think something that adds to my thoughts and allows me to see better in the future. This is actually at its most interesting when your reaction is very different from mine. When there is no obvious flow between me seeing and creating, and you reacting. You have my attention the most when you have seen something that I didn’t.
If Winogrand is right and photos are new facts then they are interesting special cases to practise seeing on. If I can’t see what you can see in the photograph then I have to ask myself why? And is it interesting? It is much more difficult to have the same conversation about the real world. It is too big and we might not be looking at the same thing. Observation changes reality’s cat. Time creates difficulty. Things change whilst they are being described. On the other hand, photos are dimensionally limited. They don’t react to being observed. They do not change signficantly during a viewing period. And my photos are something that I think that I’ve looked at. That I think that I understand. Show me a new way of looking at them and boy, am I interested. I’m learning.
There are a couple of subsidiary things going on. I’m one of those human being thingies, so like everybody else I get high on random praise. Getting a few ‘the best photo ever’ comments never did anybody any harm.
I also use my photos as gateways to communication. Here I am on Photostream and Art & Perception (dual posting) talking about stuff – both through the comments and by email – with dozens of people that I’ve never met (it is sometimes slightly spooky that the conversations are overheard by quite so many thousands of you, which is why my email address is so freely available). The communication is about art. Not the other way around.
Colin, your photos speak for themselves. There are certain running themes that people might notice, but of course those don’t need to be pointed out in a statement.
Most artist statements I see are pretty dreadful. But they don’t have to be. The bad ones seem to fall into two camps. They are either attempts to impress the reader with how much critical theory the artist read in school, or they go in the other direction and talk about how their colors express their deepest passions, etc., and tell us what their message is. Either one is enough to make you cringe.
The few artist’s statements I’ve gotten something worthwhile from don’t talk about what the work is supposed to mean, but about the artist’s process or philosophy. For instance, you say that the photos are what you see, and (elsewhere) that you don’t manipulate them. I’d be interested in hearing more about that.
Do you only photograph things as you find them, or do you set them up sometimes? Do you have a particular attitude or philosophy that would help us understand why you make that choice?
I usually don’t want the artist telling me what they think their images mean. What I want to know is more about the artist, and how they go about their work.
Colin, if you say that your art is not about communication, I’m not going to arrogantly insist that it is. You know more about what you are trying to do than anyone.
But this topic has some untouched points. You have inspired me. I shall write about this for my Saturday piece.
Here now, however, I will address a point you make on Photostream though.
People tell me that art is about communication. They tell me that you can see what the artist intended by looking at the artwork.
The second statement is purest vanity; furthermore, it does not follow from the first.
Of course, some artists do have obvious intentions. In which case, where is the benefit of explaining? When someone does that for me, I want to say (and sometimes do), “Gee. Thanks for explaining that to me like I was a little child.” And where the intention is not obvious, as it is in any of our greatly famous pieces of art, like say, Giorgione’s The Tempest, just who the HELL do you think you ARE to “explain” it.
So I share your irritation with such an approach.
This practice of “analyzing intentions,” while good fodder for Master’s Thesis, is of limited to non-existent practical value to the advancement of art.
But the former? You have not made that case. You too narrowly define the term. Simply that. You insist that there must be an exact intention, as though it were merely a matter of carrying an accurate copy of one image or idea from one mind to another, and while that is a schoolbook definition that they use to measure intelligence, communication is certainly not limited to that.
It might help this discussion to have examples of “communication” where at least it’s clear that something is going on between artist and viewer that is mediated by the artwork. Probably some will want to call it communication and some won’t. One of the nicest handy examples I know–with the bonus of the artist’s post facto reflection on it–is in Paul Butzi’s article at http://www.butzi.net/articles/for.htm (is this a link?). One should read the article, but to quote one sentence with the C word: “In some sense the photographs are successful because they communicate ‘beach’ in a way that conveys some deep understanding of ‘beachness’.” True, the understanding the viewer has after viewing a photograph is not the same as that the photographer had, but it seems fair to say something is transmitted. To the extent the understandings differ and there is further dialog, the photographer can learn from the viewer in the way Colin likes to. I don’t know about you, but t often feel that moments of deepest understanding are when I’m being reminded of something I already knew (sort of), but had somehow forgotten. That’s the kind of communication that art can do really well for me (as viewer).
Colin,
I got criticized earlier for being critical of posting style. So I want to phrase this carefully . . .
I feel slightly disoriented reading this post, as though I don’t know if you are speaking to me, or if I am overhearing a conversation you are having with someone else.
You are experimenting with a “dual post” here, which is somewhat different from a “cross post.” It is a new form — at least one I am not used to.
The question is, should I get used to this kind of thing, or should you tailor the post for Art & Perception more specifically for this site? (”Tailoring” would only require minor editing, of course.)
I honestly don’t know the answer. The dual post gives me the feeling of being connected with your photostream audience, and that is neat. But as I said, there is also a feeling of disorientation.
…often feel that moments of deepest understanding are when I’m being reminded of something I already knew (sort of), but had somehow forgotten. That’s the kind of communication that art can do really well for me
I agree, and that’s for me the one of the most powerful kinds of art experiences, both as viewer and as artist (when I create something that reminds me…).
I think much of the confusion and disagreement here about the “communication” issue is that people are using the word in different ways. In the broadest sense, of course there is communication of some sort. But it can also be taken to mean “delivering a message from the artist to the viewer”, and that’s where some of us feel it doesn’t describe what we’re doing.
Aaah, artist statements! I am one of the truly strange artist beasts who actually enjoys reading them, although many are lousy…. Having said that, I do think there is an “art” to writing them, to giving enough context without spoon feeding the viewer. I struggle with that. I want to direct the viewer somewhat and then let them just look. And my work is mostly about “just looking.” Viewers have told me that my statement is helpful, esp for my newer more abstract work.
I agree with David about the two camps statements can get trapped in. The more academic ones are often annoying, elitist, and opaque. But there are folks who truly resonate with critical theory, art historical context, the world of ideas, and they do it honestly, without pretension. One of my former professors, Michelle Forsyth, is an example: http://www.orangesideout.com.
I also think given our time of post-post modernism, or wherever we are, and given movements like conceptualism, that often artwork is about the ideas and the visual combined. Or just ideas. And the context of the work can matter very much. For example, you can’t look at the photos of trash trucks of Mierle Ukeles and really understand them without the context of the whole project.
The artists who contribute to this site seem to be more on the purely visual side of the spectrum (from what I have seen so far), where what you see IS the experience of the piece. But not all artists are like that, and I enjoy the whole range.
Leslie, your are certainly right that there is an art to artist’s statements. Also the verbal kind. Dan Bodner has a magic ability to draw people into his work with a few well chosen words. He also has a great voice for it. On the other hand, I once bought a painting and then lost interest in it suddenly — and permanently — when the artist explained that some elements of the background that I liked were just “decoration.”
I don’t diminish the aesthetic basis for Colin’s stance against communication, but it is also a practical and safe stance to take. Colin won’t loose customers with dumb statements, but he also misses out on some of the magic that Dan achieves (perhaps…)
woops, the site of michelle forsyth is http://www.orangesideout.org. Sorry about that.
I haven’t read the other comments so I might be repeating things or going in a different direction – I’ll read them next.
But first I want to react to just the post.
I know understand what you mean. And while we can split hairs over the definition of the word communication I think that is a waste of time.
I can very much relate to your desire for a dialog and it is something I say when I have to write long blah,blah,blahs about my work. I love hearing what others see in my work because it usually brings me to a greater understanding of the work, of myself and of the other person. I find that dialogs about a piece of artwork can be very revealing in a way that normal conversations might be more guarded.
Colin – thanks for answering the question.
The playwright Amy Freed was asked how the support she’d gotten had affected her art.
Her response was “The support I’ve recieved has enabled me to take the biggest risk an artist can take – the risk of being understood.”
I think her comment is a big insight – that often our innate defensiveness trips us up and we decline to take the risk of making art (or writing artist’s statements) that can be understood.
Also, Colin, if you need an artist’s statement for something, just use the first six paragraphs off your photo home page. That’s a heck of a fine artist statement. None of the gallery owners I’ve ever met would refuse it.
Finally, there’s one thing I want to say on the ‘communication’ front. Colin makes a very interesting distinction when he writes (of his photos) “There is no message in the bottle”. Some art is what I think of as ‘agenda’ art – art made to advance a viewpoint. That’s one kind of communication, and it’s the kind I think Colin is rejecting.
But some art (and I’d include Colin’s) is what I think of as ‘introspective art’ – in this case the photographs are more about what’s behind the camera than what happened to be in front of it when the shutter was opened. I happen to think that’s communication, too, but it’s very non-directed and not overt. It’s not about messages encoded as metaphor in the art, it’s about portraying some more durable understanding, and it’s a lot easier to pick up on by viewing a lot of an artist’s work than by viewing a single piece, which is why I worry a lot about critiques of single works out of the context of the larger body of work.
David,
It should take no genius to determine which sense of a word the author is using. If the context is not clear, it is the obligation of the writer to make it so, not the obligation of the reader to try and second guess him or her. It is not a matter of disagreement over the meaning of the word. One who makes an assertion as strong as this is obligated to define his or her terms. It is not my job to spend a good part of several mornings and evenings trying to extract the definitions in use from multiple contextual clues.
Lisa,
This is not splitting hairs. Communication is the senior organizing principle to the subject of art.
Colin,
To the main theme of this post — Artistic Statements
Had you said, “My art is not about conveying a specific piece of information. I am not trying to create in the mind of the viewer a preconceived effect…”
I would have said “Touché!”
But you didn’t say that. You said it’s not about communication. You went on to say that art is not about communication. You are tired of rehashing this. Good. You should be. I’m glad to hear that.
If you don’t want to rehash it, then withdraw your statement or modify it to make it communicate more clearly. You or anyone else has no right to assert that art is not about communication then hide behind an infantile “it’s all belief and opinion anyway” when challenged.
Communication is the senior organizing principle to the subject of art.
According to who? Certainly not Colin. :) Rex, You can’t go and say things like that anymore than Colin say isn’t about communication, without justification.
I understood what Colin was saying in this post – I maybe have different words to describe what he meant but to me he communicated his point effectively and it helped me clarify some thinking about my own work and what I’m trying “say” with it. So I’m not going to split hairs with him over his use of the language.
And I knew as soon as I posted that that I should have gone in and editted my comment to say “I think that is a waste of time of MY time” – but then didn’t – laziness. Rex you didn’t disappoint by picking up on that – in fact had you not I would have thought you asleep.
My point being this is not a conversation that interests me a lot (maybe it should but it doesn’t at this point). It will be interesting and I might learn something to read what you all say – I just won’t be worrying if we all agree on the definitions.
This is not splitting hairs. Communication is the senior organizing principle to the subject of art.
Super! Now, pick up that particular box, shuffle over to
http://www.artandperception.com/2006/11/tell-me-what-you-think.html and give me some feedback based on what you think I’m communicating through those photos.
I know this might sound a like a diversionary tactic but seriously, I’m actually hoping for feedback along those lines.
It has been a long day. So a few quick comments on the above before I get on and read the much more important other posts today. I’ll probably split this comment into several parts so if you come in the middle of it please bear with me.
Karl: I don’t know if you are speaking to me, or if I am overhearing a conversation you are having with someone else. There’s nothing sophisticated going on here mate. I was answering Lisa’s question. Only today we don’t write letters starting “Dear Ms Call” we broadcast scattered words to the world.
Actually, you are right, it was a Photostream post. That’s where it was going before Paul twisted my arm to speed things up and bring it here. Sorry, won’t do it again, etc. I don’t do 6am very well.
David: …..that you don’t manipulate them. I’d be interested in hearing more about that. Do you only photograph things as you find them, or do you set them up sometimes? In the field, I don’t set up, but I do collect things and bring them inside. If you count this as ’setting up’ then I do that as well.
The thing about manipulation is a long and tedious debate within photography. An easy to laugh at example is the polar bear on sand dune combo that anybody could imagine, and most people with a modicum of Photoshop skill could produce. My line is, essentially, that there is more wonder in the world than I could make up, so why make stuff up. I think I said somewhere on that linked page that all photography contains some manipulation (like the world isn’t monochrome, right) so everything is a matter of degree. If you look at the fish picture that I posted earlier this week and know it is one of my photographs, then you can be sure that that tin fish really was in that window. It isn’t something that I bought in a junk shop and cloned in. However, I did change the tonal relationships – explained a bit in my answer to Paul in the thread which followed the picture. Most photographers will give you a different answer about what is ‘too much’ manipulation. Remind me another time and I’ll find a few examples.
Colin,
Please don’t apologize to me of all people for your posting method. It may be that you have hit on a great idea here. I’m just pointing out that I noticed something out of the ordinary.
Steve: I think that on your analysis it might depend on whether there was intent on the part of the transmitting half of the transmit/receive duo. That may be a case where the language needs two words and only has one.
At a much more practical level….how different can the recipient’s view of the communication be from the sender’s view before the idea that anything has been communicated breaks down. Are you familiar with the discussion on The Online Photographer about the famous picture of the child with a gun and the possible interpretations thereof. Or more recently the hot-under-the-collar debate about what one of the 9/11 photos ‘meant’? Either are, or at least could be, examples of where someone said ’send reinforcements we are going to advance’ and the listener heard ’send threeandfourpence we are going to a dance’ (old English story).
Leslie: And my work is mostly about “just looking.” Viewers have told me that my statement is helpful This debate started because Jon asked what I was communicating, and I was just trying to be helpful……
Karl: I don’t diminish the aesthetic basis for Colin’s stance against communication, but it is also a practical and safe stance to take. Colin won’t loose customers with dumb statements, but he also misses out on some of the magic that Dan achieves (perhaps…) Not so safe it seems given the amount of times I’ve been abused for holding this view. But to pick up on your more important point, the magic has happen before I show a piece to anybody else. And the more I direct anybody as to what to look at, the less likely they are to bring a fresh eye to the piece.
Also I have no ’stance against communication’. I’m simply not trying to communicate. As I’ve said before, you may be, and that is fine. Broadening this out a little (hello, Rex) I am responding to the assertions of others (and literally to the question from Jon who assumed that I was communicating from the nature of his question).
If there are two artists in the room, and A says ‘all art is about communication’ and B says ‘mine isn’t', then one of the following has to be true:
- B is lying
- B isn’t doing art
- A is wrong
Lisa: Colin – thanks for answering the question. No worries.
Paul: Also, Colin, if you need an artist’s statement for something, just use the first six paragraphs off your photo home page. That’s a heck of a fine artist statement. None of the gallery owners I’ve ever met would refuse it. Thanks. Now in its fourth iteration. I’m leaving it for a while….
Karl: Please don’t apologize to me of all people for your posting method. It may be that you have hit on a great idea here. I’m just pointing out that I noticed something out of the ordinary. Karl, there are more smilies in my writing than may sometimes be evident. You have to remember that I don’t speak American.
All: spliiting hairs – now, in this household one of us is genetically balding and one of us is chemically balding.
End of topic?
Lisa,
Rex, You can’t go and say things like [Communication is the senior organizing principle to the subject of art]… anymore than Colin say isn’t about communication, without justification.
:) Heh. Gotcha!
My argument to Colin does not depend on the truth of that proposition. That is a straw dog. But I will elaborate on the postion in my next post.
Paul,
If you were actually reading what I said, you would know that I’m not interested in telling other artists what I think they were thinking; furthermore, I disdain critical analysis which purports to do so, but I will gladly shuffle on over…
If you were actually reading what I said, you would know that I’m not interested in telling other artists what I think they were thinking; furthermore, I disdain critical analysis which purports to do so, but I will gladly shuffle on over
No fair. I didn’t ask you to tell me what I was thinking, I asked to you comment on the work from the context of ‘communication is the senior organizing principle of art’.
It’s a problem, Rex, when you try to put words in my mouth – mostly because it’s often rather cramped already because my foot is in it.
Colin,
I know of the 9/11 photo interpretation controversy, not the other. I absolutely agree with you that communication of a particular message, even if intended and strived for in the artwork, is touchy at best. On the other hand, I agree with discourse theory (sorry) that simply to utter something–or show a picture–has a conversational implication. In fact, in this “attention economy” it can mean a lot. In personal experience, on many enjoyable hikes, the exchange has involved mostly “Look at that branch” sorts of things. That can sometimes feel like pretty deep communication. Anyway, disregarding terminology, I think we quite agree on substance.
Man, I spend a day away from my computer and look at all the stuff I have to catch up with!
The artists who contribute to this site seem to be more on the purely visual side of the spectrum..
Leslie, I count myself as being about as far away from that view as one can imagine. I’m totally fascinated by the conceptual framework behind most of the work I’m drawn too. And occasionally I’ll read an artist’s statement, or better yet an interview, that completely engages me. A couple of examples are just about anything Brian Eno says or writes, and various interviews I’ve read with Robert Irwin. And there are plenty of others.
The things I dread reading are the kinds of statements I mentioned above: either just-out-of-gradschool artists still trying to impress their teachers, or naive simplistic cliches romanticizing the “artistic personality”. If someone writes an intelligent unpretentious statement that actually gives me some added insight into their work, I’m delighted.
Colin, you mentioned in the comments to an earlier post that you write to find out what you think (I’m sure I’m paraphrasing badly). That’s the main value I’ve gotten from having to write artist’s statements. They force me to clarify my thinking about what I’ve been doing.
in this household one of us is genetically balding and one of us is chemically balding.
End of topic?
I don’t think so, Colin. You are presenting a text self-portrait here. And yet your visual artwork is, by your own admission, without statement. Why are you wasting our time with pictures of fake fish? I think you have a lot to communicate and you want to do it, but you are afraid to do it with your photography.
Why?
Why are you photographing leaves?
Here is the photo with a statement. This proves you can do it. The fish is just a distraction. It’s just craft. Art is about statement. Art is statement. Don’t waste time.
Karl, er, no.
And the leaf picture is beautiful.
And the ’statement’ picture is a joke.
I think that Omega’s comment on the fish picture could stand for the ’statement’ picture too. It is rather flattering, so I’m not going to quote all of it, but selectively: I don’t think of those as full blown communication, but as a nudge and a pointed finger saying “just look at that!”.
I am fascinated by your contrived, and contorted view of art making. Why are you afraid to accept that stuff just is?
I look forward to future discussions on the topic.
David
Colin, you mentioned in the comments to an earlier post that you write to find out what you think (I’m sure I’m paraphrasing badly). That’s the main value I’ve gotten from having to write artist’s statements. They force me to clarify my thinking about what I’ve been doing.
That’s why I had a go at writing one last year, and why I’ve persisted to make it into something that seems right.
David,
I’m totally fascinated by the conceptual framework behind most of the work I’m drawn too.
Now there is a discussion to get our teeth into sometime.
If I say ‘could you explain/expand’ could you take that to mean, not here, but at your leisure, and at length, sometime in the future.
David,
(putting this here to improve the chances that you will see the comment).
In the Four Seductions thread you mentioned liking Edward Burtynsky.
Here is a link to a Youtube video about his working methods – plus lots of others with him talking.
I could no more imagine somebody who worked like that taking the ‘fake fish’ picture than I could imagine taking his photographs.
Would all the people who are strongly of the view that ALL art is about communication, therefore accept the view that literature is the highest form of art? After all, it is the one where the artist has the most control over the exact nuances of what is communicated, and the choice about whether to communicate very explcitly or “through a glass darkly” (eg much poetry)?
I think there’s a great difference between deliberate communication and, how should I put this, unrecognised or subliminal or even unintended communication in art. If I had to consider the communication aspect each time I made an image I would soon grind to a halt. Certainly productivity would all but vanish in an instant.
The world communicates with us in many ways. One of those is visual. That visual message is processed in many impenetrable ways by what is inside your head.
Who knows what makes me head towards those leaves … perhaps it’s beauty or perhaps it’s the fact that they are different from all the other beautiful leaves in some way. I certainly don’t think about it. I just go and shoot because I am attracted there. I don’t wait to fully understand the attraction before heading off.
And there I have a photograph of some leaves. I show it to people because I think they are beautiful but that is no more a message than saying that this photograph is worth looking at. Why are they beautiful? What is it about them that makes them beautiful? How have form, light and perspective come together to bring us that visual stimulation that causes our minds to pop the word beautiful into our mouths? There are answers to these questions, likely many, and these answers will likely be wildly or subtly different depending upon the personal context of each individual viewer.
I do know that if I had to consider the answer to those questions, even superficially, before I took a shot and made an image I would make far, far less images. If I had to consider the issues in depth I would probably make ten images in my lifetime.
Images contain more questions than they do direct communication from the artist to the viewer. Indeed I think the link from the artist to the viewer is the weakest one when juxtaposed with the link between the image and the viewer. The artist sees something of merit but must have formalised that merit into full and proper understanding before or during the art creation process for there to be honesty in a piece of art as properly constructed communication. It is communication, of course, but not as deliberate and not as understood as we might want to believe. So what is it? An appeal? What the heck is it about those leaves? Do you see it too?
Sorry to continue on but this has just come to mind……..
Let’s consider this notion of communication in the visual arts further so that we can put it into some kind of perspective and by that I mean relative success of the artwork defined in terms of its success at communicating. For it to be of primary consideration (or even secondary) we have to consider the merits of the work of art in terms of the success of the communication of the message to each viewer. Thankfully, and helpfully, there is already a whole industry of art that is dedicated to the production of this communication rich and communication judged artwork. Fully understood messages, exquisitely understood, executed and performed by some of the best communicative artists in the world. For still images that industry is the commercial (either stock or commissioned) advertising photography industry. On message, communication rich, message delivered commercial advertising. From conception to execution to delivery the message and the artwork are measurably judged by quality feedback in large quantities.
This communication is rich in beauty, technique, ability and countless other characteristics all manifesting themselves in the work and its presentation. If the message and the intent is how we judge art then we have all been beaten, long, long ago, by the advertising industry.
I’d like to think that there’s far, far more to the visual arts than that and of course there is.
Steve Durbin wrote in one of the comments above that “don’t know about you, but [I] often feel that moments of deepest understanding are when I’m being reminded of something I already knew (sort of), but had somehow forgotten. That’s the kind of communication that art can do really well for me (as viewer).
I think the key word in that excellent sentence is the word “reminded”. It hints at a kind of subtlety that appeals directly the personal context of the viewer. It reaches into the past a clasps the remnants of something that has been dormant, perhaps since childhood. When that memory fights its way back it brings with it all kinds of other remnants. Feelings of cold, warmth, the smell of flowers or perfume, the name of a dog, man or woman. Accidentally or on purpose the artist has done something that has caused a deeply personal response from the viewer, something that commercial advertising cannot do because it, by design, must appeal to a common and usually superficial context of as many people as possible.
No, communication is not the measure. Intent is not the measure ether. I think the most valid and lasting measure is that response from the viewer and to that viewer it matters not one jot what the artist was thinking, if anything at all.
JohnJo: Between you, you and Steve have just elegantly restated Hugh MacLeod’s idea of narrative gaps, in the context of art. Thank you.
Get to work.
Colin, thanks for the Burtynsky link. I won’t be able to check it out right now because I’m at my day job, but I’ll take a look later.
Regarding my comment about being interested in the conceptual framework of the artists I’m drawn to, I should be clear that I don’t have to know that framework to be engaged by the work, and I also don’t have the time to find out about every single artist whose work I like. It’s just that when it’s available and when I take the time to find out about it, it has the potential to deepen my appreciation of the work. Of course there’s no guarantee that it will…
Why are you wasting our time with pictures of fake fish? I think you have a lot to communicate and you want to do it, but you are afraid to do it with your photography.
Karl, do you really mean this, or are you just being contentious?
David,
I certainly meant it at the moment I wrote it.
I think this feeling had been developing for me: Colin was saying again and again the he is not trying to communicate anything with his work. I finally decided to accept his view.
Colin obviously has many profound things to say, both with words, and with photography (I gave an example of his work that, in the context of his website, is very powerful in expressing or communicating emotion, to me at least).
But if the fish is really about nothing, as Colin says, it seems to me that it was simply an exercise. Why should I look deeply at it, if the artist feels it contains no information for me?
We all know that a frame affects the way a work is perceived. Words and discussion create a metaphorical but powerful frame for an artwork as well. Colin, with his words, had produced a frame that made his fish photo irrelevant to me — a waste of time.
Is it being contentious to say that? If I recall (and I just checked), the fish post was called “Your reactions, please”. I recorded my reactions on different days. The relevant difference between these comments was the discussion that had come in between. I gave my reactions, which is what Colin asked for. Anything less would have been, well, something less.
An aside about the brain here. The brain has different regions that are specialized for different functions. Some areas of the brain are closely linked to language. Others are not. But all areas of the brain are involved in communication and information processing — communication with other areas of the brain, and in some cases in communication, or receiving communication, from the outside world.
Thus, Christian, I don’t agree for a moment that literature is the “highest form of art” (whatever that means exactly) because I don’t consider verbal communication to be the only, or even most important, form of communication.
Christian, I think for the sake of discussion it is helpful for individuals to stake out strong, clearly defined positions. Even if these are a bit extreme, it facilitates discussion. If everyone takes a wishy-washy view, then there may be more social harmony, but there will be little intellectual progress. So I am happy to stand up for the position that “ALL art is about communication”. It may be an overstatement, but for discussion I will try to support it, if you would like to take the opposing view.
Colin, the leaf picture is beautiful, I don’t dispute that for a moment. But being beautiful does not make it communication or art.
The “statement” picture is a joke? In what respect? Do you mean that it is intended to be a humorous picture, or that it is a joke in the sense of “low quality?” I don’t know enough about photography to guess why you would indicate the latter (or why you would put a low quality picture on your site). So I infer the former, that the picture is a joke, in the sense of the communication of a humorous idea. Thus, we agree that it is a photo that communicates. At least we have this for common ground.
By the way Colin, I would not have made such a strong comment about your work unless I had the greatest respect for you and your potential as an artist. I considered carefully whether or not to submit the comment (I guess this answers David’s question). I decided that I was better to express my view, even at the risk of alienating you. Alienation does not seem to have been the result, which pleases me very much.
I think for the sake of discussion it is helpful for individuals to stake out strong, clearly defined positions. Even if these are a bit extreme, it facilitates discussion.
I don’t agree with this. If an issue is complex, and the person writing the comment realizes that, why should they simplify their views by staking out an extreme position they don’t hold?
Espousing simplistic views can help get you elected to a political office, but I don’t actually think they make discussions any richer.
The issue of art and communication is so complex and vague that unless we take a clear stand and examine it, we will get nowhere.
Arguing a hypothetical position is a useful mechanism for debate.
Consider your comment. You make some interesting points, but you don’t move the art and communication issue forward a single step.
In neuroscience the late Francis Crick made a huge contribution by stating a hypothesis of brain function. His hypothesis was more or less absurd, but it inspired valuable research, and we did learn something, even if it was to show he was wrong. I don’t think he viewed his hypothesis as absurd initially, but he certainly viewed it as hypothesis. He was not the least bit annoyed at the experimental results that contradicted his ideas. Francis was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.
Testing a hypothesis is all I am talking about here. It doesn’t really matter if I believe the hypothesis or not. In fact, I don’t have much right to believe in any hypothesis, for the very fact that it is hypothesis. So David, I think you are just plain wrong about methodology.
I hold the view “art is about communication” more than the opposite. I don’t feel uncomfortable trying to support it, if someone can offer some counter evidence. I haven’t seen any yet.
Testing a hypothesis is all I am talking about here. It doesn’t really matter if I believe the hypothesis or not.
I think it’s perfectly valuable to test a hypothesis. But I do prefer, when having a conversation, to know whether the things someone is saying represent what they really think or whether they’re just testing their hypotheses.
You make some interesting points, but you don’t move the art and communication issue forward a single step.
It’s been an interesting discussion. I’m not sure it’s been moving forward at all, however, in terms of us reaching any conclusions we can all agree on. Do you feel it has?
Not really. I’d rather talk about what an artwork communicates than if it should be doing so. But I always enjoy talking with you guys about any topic, so I am not complaining here.
Also, we are exercising the process of expressing strong views while remaining in contact. That in itself is valuable.
I’m not complaining either. I’m having fun.
It seems to me that everyone on the ‘art is communication’ debate is talking past each other.
Allow me several observations.
1. If we define ‘communication’ as ‘transfer of at least one binary digit of information from some place (perhaps unknown) to the observer of the art work’ then ‘Art is communication’ is trivially true. Claiming that this ends the meaningful discussion of whether communication is important to art seems disingenuous at best and deliberately obfuscatory at worst.
2. If we define ‘communication’ as ‘transfer of huge amounts of data (on the order of a novel) then the claim that ‘without communication there is not art’ is trivially false. Again, claiming that this ends meaningful discussion is somewhere between disingenuous and deliberately obfuscatory, inclusive.
4. Communication is a very broad term with several defintions, and if you really want to make progress then it would make sense to abandon use of the word ‘communication’ and stick with words that have narrower meanings.
5. Arguing against ‘Art is never about communication’ is pointless, since I’ve never actually seen anyone make that claim.
Karl-
Here are several hypotheses about art. Tell me if you think disproving them will advance our understanding of art in some meaningful way:
1. All art is the result of mind-control communication originating from a colony of preternaturally clever squirrels that live in the stump outside my studio window.
2. All art is a manifestation of a viral infection that causes us to engage in pointless behavior.
3. Making art is an artifact of lesions in our nervous system, rather like an aesthetically pleasing petit mal epileptic seizure.
We can sometimes learn things by disproving a hypothesis which at first blush seems goofy. But that does not mean that spending our time disproving goofy hypotheses is the best way to proceed. Ideally, you test a hypothesis which as nearly as possible bisects the potential space, so that whether it comes out proved or disproved, you eliminate a large number of possible theories. And, sometimes great advances are made by testing the hypothesis that represents the consensus. We learned a lot when Michelson and Morely failed to find evidence of the ether wind.
1. All art is the result of mind-control communication originating from a colony of preternaturally clever squirrels that live in the stump outside my studio window.
If you do disprove this one please don’t tell me. Some days my belief in this is all that keeps me going.
David,
I too feel behind in the stream as I am not on the computer as much as some folks!! I did not mean to imply that you (or others)are not interested in the world of ideas. What I am responding to when I look at the sites of A and P contributers is that the visual comes first in the work, it is the “hook” to get people to explore your ideas, not the other way around. I can look at your images and not read a word, and get a lot out of the experience. That is all I am putting forward here. It would be interesting to hear a point of view of someone whose first concern is the idea, and the visual is secondary.
Leslie,
You’re saying you would like to hear from “writers”. Arthur Whitman is a professional writer. Rex Crockett has written a book which he now plans to illustrate with drawings. In some respects or works, both of these individuals put the text-based idea before the visual.
Karl,
Nope, not writers, necessarily. I was thinking of artists whose main focus is the idea – the idea matters most, not necessarily the visual result of the idea. Or the idea is more important than “how it looks.” In the context of this discussion about artist statements and art as acommunication, I am just trying to think of how a broad scope of artists want you to experience their art – do you read about it (an artist statement, or even more)to understand it? Or do you just look and experience it visually?
I think of three major aspects of a piece of art (I could be inviting argument here, but if so, great):
1. Form – What does it look like?
2. Subject Matter/Concept – What is it about? What is the major idea behind it?
3. Content – What does it mean?
Some artsits are most concerned with #1 – such as Helen Frankenthaler for example.
Some artists are more concerned with #2 – The major idea of Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” is a celebration of women artists, giving them their just credit in a male dominted art world, etc.
Some care more about #3 – Ukeles is whoI mentioned before. I think she would be disappointed if you just admired her photo of a trash truck without reading about the whole project “Touch Sanitation,” in which she shook the hands of every sanitation worker in NYC to thank them for their service.
http://www.feldmangallery.com/pages/Press%20pages/2002/ukeles%20in%20new%20york%20times.html
Obviously much art balances all three aspects…Does that make more sense?
Leslie, I like your division 1-2-3, but the labels that you have applied could be confusing (’Content’ could be ‘Subject matter’ etc). Also, your number 2 seems to be two things
How about:
1. Appearance (how does it look)
2. Subject (being the superficial subject)
3. Idea (being the conceptual subject)
4. Meaning (what does it mean?)
Does this make sense?
Colin,
That makes a lot of sense. Looking back on it, I used to think:
1. Form
2. Content
3. Meaning
which is closer to your idea.
Can you give me an idea of superficial vs. conceptual subject?
Do you mean like a painting of a clear cut forest has the superficial subject of landscape whereas the conceptual subject may be that humans are destroying the earth (depending on the particular artist’s intent)? Kind of simplistic, but I am wondering how you differentiate…
Leslie,
Assuming we are talking about the visual arts here.
Appearance and Subject are things that a viewer can determine – either absolutely, or at least with little doubt.
Have a look at this.
You could tell me what this looks like and what the superficial subject is.
The Idea you couldn’t tell me just by looking at the photo. Or at least I would be very surprised if you could. Sometimes people can guess the idea behind an artwork, but the hit rate is low. Some part of what the idea was in my head when I took the photo is in the comment discussion which you can open.
The Meaning? Well it has no meaning. I only included Meaning, because people do, and this wasn’t the time to get into that discussion.
Do you mean like a painting of a clear cut forest has the superficial subject of landscape whereas the conceptual subject may be that humans are destroying the earth (depending on the particular artist’s intent)?
Well, it might mean that. Or it might mean ‘laminated root rot is a really big problem for forest managers, and often the only sensible management practice when a stand is infected is to clearcut the infected stand and replant with a resistant species.’
It’s hard to know, which is why I think that if art is communication, it’s not very effective at it. The message communicated all too often seems to be determined by the receiving end, which is a weird way for communication to work.
Paul,
My example of the image of the clearcut forest was just an example, not a discussion of an actual image. And I didn’t get into how the viewer might know that the conceptual subject was environmental vs. forest manangement. That could be achieved through an artist staement, background info about the artist, the work in a series of images, etc. My point was to clarify the distinctions Colin was putting forward between superficial and conceptual subject matter.
“It’s hard to know, which is why I think that if art is communication, it’s not very effective at it. The message communicated all too often seems to be determined by the receiving end, which is a weird way for communication to work.”
Yes, a lot is determined by the receiving end, which could be frustrating for many artists who may be surprised by what actually gets communicated and what gets completely lost. That’s what makes art a particularly interesting and tricky form of communication in my mind. If it were straight forward with one known result, it might be science, not art. An artist takes risks by putting something out there for the viewer’s interpretation. Don’t you ever feel like some people “get” your work and some don’t? Have you communicated well with those who get it, who really resonate with it, who want to buy it? Or is it just that they share your interests, taste, etc.?
Colin,
I get what you are saying about subject matter now. I think what you call conceptual subject matter I would put under meaning (not that the distinction is that important), which is all the stuff you can’t really get from looking at the piece… or as I said in the above comment to Paul, the stuff that is more open to the viewer’s interpretation.
When you say “Sometimes people can guess the idea behind an artwork, but the hit rate is low,” is this a source of personal frustration to you, or just something you have noticed when people look at your work or art in general? Just curious…
Leslie:
When you say “Sometimes people can guess the idea behind an artwork, but the hit rate is low,” is this a source of personal frustration to you,
Absolutely not.
The conversation is quite old at this point – six+ months since the original post – but I’ve enjoyed the conversation and recently referenced it in one of my own posts.
Despite the tendency towards “argument”, there’s been some great comments left and I hope that Colin benefited from the discussion.
For those interested, the article Mind Reading as Social Commentary presents my response through *performance* of the very topic under discussion here. It’s satirical, it’s fun, you might like it – or hate it…
Oddly (and ironically) enough, this piece *does* benefit from a statement, and it’s *about* statement.