Art as statement, November 2004
If a description of a piece of art can produce the same effect as the work itself, it is not art but
simply a statement. Such statements should be made in words if possible.
I saw a 'portrait' that consisted of a sample of the subject's DNA cultured in agar jelly.
I have described this to friends and I feel they would not get more out of the work if they went to see it.
It is simply a statement. It often feels as if the artist is patting himself on the back for coming up with
the idea, and implying some inspired insight that they are expressing. If they do have this insight,
they should describe it. Simply hinting at it this way is a cheap stunt of self-glorification.
I imagine the artist was hoping that the work would prompt discussion. In so much as I mentioned it to
others and talked about it, it has succeeded. However, our discussion centred on why exactly we did not
like this kind of art. There seems to be a lot of that kind of work about, and it is all expressing the same idea.
|