Stained Reflections

There is a debate at hand on whether an artist’s statement is necessary for a piece or body of work or no statement at all. Some art critics, professors, artists, and curators say that any piece or series should include an artist’s statement in one form or another. This way the viewer or audience is able to pinpoint what exactly it is that the artist or group of artists is/are trying to convey.

On the other hand, there are many art critics, professors, artists, and curators whom claim that there should be no written statement at all. The idea is that the art should speak for itself. One solution to this is the placement of an artist’s statement. An artist’s statement is often placed at the beginning of an exhibition as an introduction to the body of work and an initial visual/mental guide to understanding the series of art.

It is my feeling that an artist’s statement should be left at the discretion of the artist. Sometimes an artist wants to give more background to his or her art presentation, purpose, or process. Just as it is not a retailer’s job to instruct a person on how or where to wear their fashion; it is not always the duty of the artist to tell the viewer that there is only one meaning in the art and that the audience must only think one way. Some work is elevated and better understood or gifts the audience through some background or insight, while other work is more powerful without any predetermined direction at all. The work is then left to converse with the viewer alone.

One solution or compromise to the two is to have an artist’s statement at the end of the gallery series. If an artist(s) chooses to present a statement, then the curator may place the statement at the end of the gallery space. This way, the viewer may experience the work on a personal level. Afterwards, while reading the artist(s)’ intentions, the viewer may clique with the artist(s) or may find that there was more than one angle to perception through difference. By this, a viewer my find camaraderie with the artist, or on the other hand, feels enlightened through multiple understandings.

January 18th, 2007

Many people believe that an artist is not a true artist until he or she gains complete consistency in his or her work. Basically, anytime a person sees a piece out of context, then he or she is able to identify the artist based solely on first sight.

Another point of view is that an artist who is too consistent is unimaginative, may have artists’ block, or lack vision or voice.

I believe that consistency is important in a specific body of work, but not all of an artists’ work should be contained to one style. I believe strongly in experimenting. Through this, one can become more original and less of a generation copy. Many artists view other artists’ work and then copy the artists’ style or process without giving credit or sitting the originator. This is in a way, a form of plagiarism. This is not the method of a true artist. The world is already filled with so many remakes, covers, and imitators. When an artist sticks to only one style for his or her only style, then he or she appears to be in a rut.

Also, when the style is not original, then that artist is not really contributing anything and is not growing. Artists can not grow on a personal level without personal exploration through thought or experience. When many people are not growing on personal levels, then the growth of humankind as a whole is stunted.

Exploration and experimenting lead to new ideas and products. This is how civilization has advanced this far. This shows originality and creativity in artists as well as contributing to humankind. Originality is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “the skill and imagination to create new things.”

Lack of consistency is not a negative thing for an artist to possess. This is proof of one’s broad spectrum of voice, vision, ability, and creativity. Risking chance, change, materials, finances, and time in order to discover or invent something new can give the world a beautiful original gift to influence other creations as well.

January 18th, 2007

There are two hemispheres of the human brain, which are said to control different thought processes. The left side of the brain is believed to control the right side of the body and be more logical, sequential, rational, analytical, objective, reasonable, and look at parts. The right side of the brain is believed to be more random, intuitive, holistic, synthesizing, subjective, and look at wholes.

In the academic sense, the left brain is more analytic and the right brain is more creative. The left hemisphere would typically excel more in science and the right brain would excel more in arts.

Both sides of the brain are powerful, but most people are unbalanced and tend to have a major slant to one side over the other. The two sides of the brain are beneficial and relative to one another. When a person is able to balance, channel, and streamline both hemispheres, he or she is able to think outside of the box and gain a whole new vantage point. Creativity and analysis are both necessary and extremely important in how humankind views life as a whole all the way down to the smallest detail.

Art can be analytic, just as science can be creative. This can be used in art by the creator or by the viewer. It’s just a matter of the starting and ending points. One can either take in the piece as a whole and then begin to explore the details or can start with details and then create a whole composition. Start at details and then ending as a whole can be symbolized as < and starting at the whole and figuring out the formula can be symbolized as >.

Art can be just colors, lines, shapes, forms, and compositions, but can also contain elements more objective and rational in nature. Using the left side of the brain in synch with the right side of the brain can greatly benefit the way one creates or views art.

January 18th, 2007

Merriam-Webster gives the first definition of criticism as: “the act of criticizing usually unfavorably.” “The second definition provided applies more to the arts: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also: writings expressing such evaluation or analysis.”

Criticism can be constructive or destructive. Constructive criticism can have many purposes. One is in sighting people to converse about visual elements, subjects, ideas, and what art is. Also, if the constructive criticism is aim at and received by the creator, then he or she can use that information in his or her creative thought process and/or production. Constructive criticism offers another’s vantage point and insight based on their view, experiences, and knowledge rolled into their opinion which can be used as a useful tool.

Destructive criticism is counteractive. It is typically a dumbfounded opinion with no intelligent or credible foundation. Destructive criticism is typically projected as an attack that has little or no value. Destructive criticism is not typically designed to be argued since it is not usually based on any type of fact, evidence, or any credible source.

What other types of criticisms exist? How do you feel about criticism? Do you value criticism, why or why not?

The process of art: an artist absorbs ideas from senses such as sight as input, then is transferred to mind (experiences, ideas, and knowledge), then after processed, transferred to hand for output or translation.

An artist doesn’t create in a studio; an artist creates in one’s mind and then transfers the idea to reality. 08-27-07

The sixth and seventh sense: touch, taste, sound, smell, sight, thought, and dream

08-27-07