Okay, that’s not true, but my point is that a work being enriched by explanation of things you might not have seen doesn’t mean that the work is crap. On the other had, to play devil’s advocate to my devil’s advocate, I do find it out to go from unremarkable to wonderful with an explanation. Ideally, work would be enjoyable on first glance and just continue to be enjoyable as you learn more about it.

@1 I suspect David Maisel’s artist statement for that project could have been, “I was bored with taking aerial photos but I’m still drawn to the same unearthly metallic color palatte. I found these cans.” They’re beautiful pictures but I’m so tired of typologies and redundant series in photography.

* An artist’s defining statement that motivates a current project in order to create a cohesive set
* An artist’s excuse for art that don’t stand up it’s own
* A buyer’s excuse for paying too much for the above
* An artist’s deeper reflection on their art after the fact
* A way for critics and journalists to fill their word-count requirements with the editor
* An artist / critic / journalist attempt to sound smarter than they really are
* The answer for a fan’s longing to immerse themselves completely in the work, like the album art and liner notes of an LP — an attempt to experience the art holistically

I’ve had some great shots turn out just cause I took out the camera and took photo.

Why should visual arts require literary explanations? I think if visual work needs to be explained, it is not good visual work. Too bad the art world and virtually all submissions demand statements these days (not always the case, especially during the vast majority of art history)

When, outside of a solo show, do you wanlk by artwork in museums and see statements? You don’t. You shouldn’t need to.

This is why I have always enjoyed Sally Mann. In an art history class I saw a documentary on her and in it there is a scene where she was taking pictures of her dog’s bones. As she’s doing it she said, “One day a few months from now these will be in a show and an art critic will come up and write a review on how these photographs are a commentary on the struggle of our feelings with the eventuality of all mankind or something like that, but really, they’re just my dog’s bones.”

I can identify with this statement. If I don’t why I’m making what I’m making but am compelled to make it anyway, then I believe that something is valid, even if I can’t articulate it. I agree that it doesn’t fly as an artist statement, but is that not what makes art exciting? The unknown? If I knew exactly what I wanted to make every time I pulled out my camera, you can be sure the results would get pretty stale after a while.

In art, we can crash our planes and still walk away, as Brian Eno said.

It’s an unresolved conflict; maybe that’s the point?

Randy

The photos themselves were well seen and appropriate to the subject manner, but they looked as though they could have been made in a weekend.

Was the story the driving force behind qualifying this project as a book and calling them art? Should the outcome of making the photo be more important than the artist statement?

http://www.davidmaisel.com/works/picture.asp?cat=lod&tl=library%20of%20dust