Something else that I read in a forum recently, speculated on why it was that the artist's statement which often accompanies an artwork, is frequently poorly written, using the most obscure and language possible, so that it is difficult to extract meaning from it - turning off all but the most committed art lover, and certainly making it inaccessible to anyone without a good education. Some of the reasons suggested for why this is were:
- Artists are not writers - they do not deal with the written word, their language is visual, and there is no real reason why they should be expected to be skilful with the written word as well, though some will be. It is also particularly challenging to communicate complex and often abstract concepts.
- Other artists are doing it, so most artists feel that they should too.
- Art departments in colleges and universities feel somewhat insecure about the academic rigour of their subject, and feel the need to compensate by making sure that their artwork deals with complex concepts, making it as difficult to understand as possible. I know from my own experience that there may be a certain amount of truth in this, certainly Fine Art was never taken that seriously as an academic subject by my fellow students who were studying the sciences.
- Arguably, meaning is what distinguishes Fine Art from the 'merely' decorative. However it is a distinction which I think is often somewhat elitist. The boundaries between the Applied, Decorative and Fine Arts are often blurred, and I hate the whole idea that one form of art is somehow less 'worthy' than another.
Having said all this, it is perhaps impossible to create a piece of artwork without any meaning, though the meaning it has for an observer may be very different to that of the artist who produces it. Even if the artist does not consciously intend their artwork to have meaning, it's production will be the result of unconscious thoughts, experiences and influences.
Maybe my feelings about this will change - I was reading about another artist recently for whom meaning is much more important in his artwork now than it originally was, even though for me as an observer, the meaning that he ascribes to it doesn't add anything. There are other cases I can think of though, when understanding the background to a piece of artwork has made my experience of it much richer, giving it additional 'depth'.
I suppose what I object to is the idea that to be taken seriously, a piece of art has to have a deep intellectual basis. No-one should feel obliged or pressured to force meaning on something that perhaps isn't really there, just as an artist should have equal freedom to impart personal meaning to their work if they wish to. After all, artists work in very different ways, for some the practice of art is almost a kind of therapy, or form of meditation, a way of working through issues in their life. Others use art to express their opinions or feelings about something happening in the world, bringing attention to an issue, or creating a fresh perspective and different way of seeing. Art is also very personal - and that's the beauty and attraction of it both for practitioners and users. At the end of the day though, for me, the best artwork is able to stand on it's own merits without needing any 'translation' or 'interpretation' by the artist in order for it to be appreciated.
