Don't get me wrong, it is of value to write about ones work. Self reflection is necessary to articulate ideas that drive the work. Critical thinking informs the creative process, no doubt. I think writing and art production are close friends.
Indeed, artists have the final word on their art. But, I don't paint when I write and I don't write when I paint. Research shows we use different parts of our brain to read/ write than draw/ paint. Thoughts come first, regardless of which vehicle gets used for expression.
9 comments:
Do artists really have the final word on their art? I think art historians tend to have the final say, whether it's erroneous or not.
Unless, of course, artists find ways to articulate and write about their art, leaving little wiggle room for interpretations.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that you don't write when you paint, and you don't paint when you write. I wasn't aware that that was even possible, to do both at once...It never seemed like walking and chewing gum at the same time...If you mean that you don't think critically about your work, while you are in the process of painting, that I can understand.
I mean I don't think about art when I'm producing it. When I write about my production, it's the writing that engages my creative process. I am not producing art when I write. I think writing is as creative an act as painting.
Personally, I don't think art historians would exist without artists. I mean you can't put art in context if there is no art. So art first, then historians.
It really irritates me that art historians get to say who is good and who isn't. It's another good reason to be articulate.
The problem is when you do tell someone exactly what the work's about,they argue with you that it's about something else.
Putting our artwork out in the public forum is part of the game we're playing. Otherwise, we'd be hanging our artwork in a cave...on Mars. It shouldn't bother you that others have different opinions about your work than you do, it's what makes each of us unique and there's nothing that can really be done about it. All you can do is explain your ideas (if you so desire) and let others take it where they will.
Historians and critics are just part of the game too, just like they are in music, movies, plays, novels, and on Bravo TV's Top Chef.
I'm curious if there was some trigger that caused you to write this post? What were you doing/reading when this came to mind?
Sorry, looking at your blog I realized you must be thinking about the Zen and Archery book you read. I'd like to see that book too, I think. Looks interesting. Is it anything like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig? Boy, I just LOVE that book!
I think that art can (and is) influenced by Zen ideas and teachings, but where it separates itself is the ego. I hate to say it, but any artist has to have at least a little bit of an ego to display their work in public and defend it as good art. It seems kind of shallow and oversimplistic to put it that way, but I really think that's how it is.
Besides, there IS thought in any artwork that is made, and writing about it can help to untangle the threads. I know this because it's something I'm struggling with at the moment; how does what I make relate to what I think? For me it's caused me to look at my art in a brand new way and to go in some interesting directions. I hope to write more about it in my blog soon.
I hope that you're able to reconcile the art-making and the thought-process/writing aspects of your art in this program. I really think it can only help to strengthen your convictions if you do.
Hi Kev,
Thanks for writing! "Zen IN THE Art of Archery" is an assigned book from my advisor, Tony Apesos.
I asked him the same question about Zen AND THE Art of Motorcyle Maintenance when he suggested it. They are both wonderful reads, but very different.
It was the Zen in the Art of Archery that got me thinking about Zen students don't talk about Zen.
I judged Maureen Gallace's artist talk pretty harshly for not being more articulate. I felt I needed to look for deeper reasons why an artist might decide not to articulate about their work and this book gave me a way to think about that differently.
I'm not worry about writing about my work. I think I worry more about switching between production and writing and trying to do them both well.
Hi Neva
I had the same conflict between writing and working, I didn't doubt the value of writing, but had great difficulty trying to both in the same day. In order to write a paper, I would pretty much step out of artmaking for the duration of the paper. And then would be catapulted back into the studio with all the built-up energy.
It ended up being a productive cycle.
Back in my studio, without assigned papers, I am trying something new: I'm writing 2-3 pages a day while in the studio, before or after working, as a way to capture all the places my mind wanders. I'm not sure where that will lead, but it feels like a good practice for now.
Hi Rebecca
Apologies for calling you Neva in that last post. I was definitely writing to you! I have been reading all of your blogs and my brains are kind of squishy with the heat.
It's a great relief to hear your comments about writing verses art production. I thought it was just me! Not being able to "chew gum and walk" at the same time, as Neva said.
I think you're right, about it being a cycle and am interested in how you are handling doing both.
I do find thinking and writing does influence what I produce or maybe it's the other way around?
I just have to be careful not to give one precedence over the other. Grad school is requiring me to do both.
Post a Comment