Bead Devil
Bead Devil #1
Feb 5, 2005, 6:37 AM
Post #1 of 1
(1744 views)
Shortcut
Private Reply
|
|
Artists Statements: Do classes define the artist.
|
Can't Post
|
|
This post was deleted (I think) from About.com. Not all my posts are actually gone, and since this was a thread starter, it may take awhile to actually disappear. But the information/questions are valid, and deserve to be thought about.
============================
[[this was the one that started it, my replies to other replies are added at the end]]
Someone suggested, in coming up with an artists statement, to put in classes you've taken.
I want to ask:
Why???
and, perhaps more importantly,
What is so important about classes you've taken when it comes to ART or defining YOUR art??
Is there some sort of "class addiction?" Maybe people are nosey? They want to find out what you've done, so they can try it themselves, or feel superior if they went to an "ivy league" class, instead of a local one. Does taking a class make you a better artist? Or, more importantly, does taking MORE classes make you a better artist?
Since art is partly education in life, and experiences, ANY classes can help you grow, expand, and be a better person, but do they DEFINE YOU as an artist?
In life, it's not what classes you take, or what degrees you get, it's what you do with them, and the information you gather.
A class can teach a skill, or maybe make you feel more comfortable. It can teach you about art, and others feelings towards art. But it can't make you an artist.
What about people who are self taught? I've seen awesome artists who've never stepped inside a class room, much less actually took a class. I've seen jewelry makers who just had an instinct. They figured out the basics of design, and even the technqiues of crimping and finishing on their own. And, they got 99% of it right. Why? What we do has a reason, and if you are in tune with the craft, then the reasons are obvious to you. It's just practice.
Does a class make you a better artist? Or can it ruin you, or change you?
I've known artists who AVOID lectures or workshops on technique, because they don't want it to influence their style. Even "hearing" it they are afraid, will change them into someone else, not who they are.
So, back to the original thing that has bugged me for a day or so now.
Why would you create an artists statement, that was based on classes you took? Isn't that defining yourself in terms of someone else (eg: the teacher?)
Your statement is not a resume. It's not a listing of what you've done, or where you've been. Your statement defines you, and I know I don't want to be defined by classes I've taken, places I've lived, or shows I've been in. I'm not defined by my awards, or what others think of me. Nor is my art.
I remember an ad for a camera a long time ago. I had it on my wall for a long time. Nikon came out with the F3. It was the first new camera in years, and it was partly electronic. It was big news. But their ad for it was simply the camera sitting on the motor drive (so it was impressive) with the bottom of the page black merging into the base of the camera itself, and shading up to a bright blue sky. The only words were the "NIKON" logo and the F3 on the front of the camera.
*NOTHING* more needed to be said. The camera spoke for itself.
Now, sure there was a volume of information and things to be said, hundreds of reviews, all sorts of information, but the "SELLING" point included none of that. They didn't talk about how great it was, or all it's features, or where it's been. They allowed it to simply speak for itself. And it did.
Can your art do the same thing?
Sharing ideas, learning, and growing are all part of life, and life as an artist. You take it from any source you can. What makes classes so special you would even consider using them to define you?
On the other hand, I have had a few "workshop" experiences that changed me. It wasn't the class, it wasn't the material, it was the entire experience. It was everything in the "air" -- the instructor, the other students, the people serving lunch, etc. I came away with a new look, a new feeling, or something different. I can say "That summer I did ___ was a great experience, and it changed me in some ways." In most cases it was what happened outside of class with a bunch of creative people around me. We *all* did amazing stuff, some I'm still envious of. But that is another story.
People, and events can have effects on YOU, but the same experience, and material will not have any effect on others.
So, perhaps, rather than what "Classes" youve taken, it should be "What experiences you've had.".
An artist who talks about something that changed them, in a non specific way, can garner fans. Talk about growing, seeing new things, changing, and things that really affected you as an ARTIST, not a specific thing that created a specific piece of art. That's over and done. The effect on you goes on. How many artists try so hard to get away from that one thing that got them attention in the first place? Usually it was a fluke, and it was not something they were really proud of, but it came to define them, and they resented it.
This is a hard concept to get out. I've read this a few times, and I'm not sure I've gotten it out right. Maybe someone can help. I'm a visual artist, and sometimes words really escape me. I have it in my head, but the words just won't come out. Hence, the "visual" part.
BBoB
============================
>> ACH!!! for someone who doesn't believe in artist's statements, now you are
>> defining what should and shouldn't be in one? You are confusing me!lol
<G> More like what shouldn't be in one, if you are making an "artists statement."
I do believe there is a time and a place for everything. But the original thoughts of the thread were, that without one, some how, the art/artist is less valid.
I'm still replying to that ORIGINAL thought, not to the various sidetracks that have happened.
Artists statement is perhaps a misunderstood term. When I was in school, liberal arts, an 'artists statement' was something you really didn't share. It was what you put up on your wall, in your studio, in your darkroom, or whereever your art was created or worked on. It was your own mission statement. This was first presented in the writing classes, but then carried through the various other fields.
On the other hand, the "About the artist" blurb was your sales pitch, which if you were lucky, someone else would write for you with your blessing.
Some artists get to the point where their mission statement becomes public. After enough press, and exposure, eventually all will become known, unless you hide it well. Most artists don't "hide" their statement, they just don't brandish it.
Other artists are such masters of publicity, the truth will never be known. For some, there is no truth, for others, the publicity of all the speculation hides/protects their truth.
15 minutes of fame. A lifetime of regrets.
BBoB
========
>> I don't feel that I need it to justify my style or techniques. I do what I do because I enjoy it
>> When it comes to my jewelry, or cake decoration or my drawings and paintings I >> follow NO ONE's rule but my own intuition and muse.
Art is the one place you have the complete freedom, full license, and encouragement to break the rules. Sometimes you'll learn why the rules were there, other times, you'll find that breaking the rules is quite rewarding.
In art, unless you are trying to show a point, or make a point, about something, encouraging students to break rules, and go beyond or into new terrirtories should be the overriding mission.
Art can't be taught. It has to be experienced.
Some of the basics can be taught, art appreciation can be taught (to a degree), skills can be sharpened in workshops, but "art" itself is something that wells up from the artist. If it was easy to do, everyone would be doing it :)
>> I follow NO ONE's rule but my own intuition and muse.
It was worth repeating :)
===============
There is no delicate way to say this. I've tried a few ways. So I'll be direct.
Classes you take : bad PR
Classes you TEACH : good PR.
It may seem like a double standard, but something about being a teacher, and passing on knowledge, or being comfortable enough to teach something, gives you status. An artist who teaches, not just sells stuff, has a larger than life image to some people. At any rate, it never conveys a bad image (unless it's a commercial plug and you teach classes obviously just to make money).
It's molding the masses (which is perceived as good) rather than being molded (which is perceived as bad).
I never thought about that before.... but it is an interesting double standard. Odd.
=============
>> effective in its simplicity because Nikon's reputation preceeds it.
{rest chopped}
Yes and no. Yes, Nikon had a reputation, but the F-3 was something totally new. They were known for rock-solid mechanical cameras. This was "electronic." It was released at a time when Minolta was closing in, and offering a professional camera to rival Nikons. They were in no means the same, actually at odds in some features, and people lined up on both sides. But, the strength and simplicity of the ad, and its effectiveness even 20+ years later on me, tells the story.
The image of the camera, in such a simple form with it speaking for itself (eg: only the logos on the camera being the only text), just out classed the competing ads. People formed their own ideas.
Other camera companies tried to plug their camera, and use words and hype to create a demand and market. This is analogous to other designers or teachers plugging themselves, while artist X only puts up a gallery, and maybe a smiling portrait of themselves comfortable in their work.
All Nikon did was put the camera "out there" and let people imagine and fantasize over it.
If they had put even ONE WORD (I don't even think there was a copyright line on the bottom of the photo) on the page, it would have ruined the effect. If they had to hype their camera, they would have played into the clutches of the other companies trying to gain ground.
That was art. It was beautiful marketing. It was classic. It was a lesson I learned, and learned well. One of a few that guide me in many things I do.
I realize you can can disagree with this, and not all situations are the same. But if you think about what you are saying -- and realize that NOT saying may be a stronger image -- then you have added a weapon to your arsenal.
Another cliche to go with the one I posted earlier about being thought a fool, is that "To take no action, IS an action."
Sometimes, doing nothing, saying nothing, is more powerful than any words.
Creative, and adaptive minimalism.
But again, this goes back to the original argument, not the side tracks. Does the artist _need_ to be defined by external references, or can the art they create speak for itself, and for them, completely? Art that is strong, speaks for itself, and commentary by the artist, or even reviewers, can ruin the experience for some people. And, while the portrait of the artist in a comfortable pose might be a "strong" image to sell their work, it's *not* required for their art to be appreciated, or to be HIGH ART on it's own merit. Salesmanship and the artists statement are really two different things.
========================
>> I have classes booked this spring with both Thomas Mann and Tim McCreight.
>> Chances are, because of my respect for each of these people, these workshops
>> will probably end up being listed somewhere in my Bio.
I need to ask, again, why?
And, it's not being "mean." Why does telling people you took a class with x, y or z affect how people should see your art?
Now, you did say your "Bio", and a biography is a "record" of a life. It's *not* an artists statement. So I guess, if a Bio is a life-time resume, in a somewhat objective (supposedly) format, then putting in what you had for breakfast on 9/11 might be appropriate for inclusion.
But, it's *not* an "Artists Statement" -- it's a record, or listing of what you've done, or where you've been, so does it define you? Which is the topic of this thread. When you want people to know your art, do they need to know what classes you've taken, & with whom? Or are you then defining your art in terms of THEIR art?
Remember, we've agreed that "Artists Statement" and "About the Artist" are not the same thing, and now you've added a "Biography" as a third form of information conveyance (and I guess, also, AutoBiography).
===================
A Nikon addict *AND* the one with the "define yourself" tag line :)
I had two (3?) F-3s. My last was the high eyepoint one. I had 2 MD4s. I used them for about a decade, as if they were a part of me. In the past decade, I think I've touched them only to make sure the batteries were not still in them :(
Do you remember that ad? I know it was the first ad that really left an impression on me as being a stroke of genious on many levels.
Maybe it was how our little "clique" talked about it, and argued over Minolta vs Nikon, but for whatever reason, that ad has stuck with me, as a symbol of what "art" is, and that words, even in a strong sales pitch, are not always necessary or warranted.
=================
The Bead Devil
|
MAIN
SEARCH
WHO'S 
LOG