What is "Fine Art"?

[jnamia]

That's a very effective statement - I can imagine reading that and seeing it uniting a series of works that might seem "random" at first.

Thanks Craig75
I appreciate you reading it !
John

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I read artist statements of people I have never met / I am interested in their work.

My artist statement(kind of a work in progress because I have a different one I have been working on as I continue with the project from a different angle):
I have been visiting a small island since I was 13 years old and ran aground there. I tried to forget about it for years but it never left my memory. Now more than 40years later, I have been visiting this place regularly and I have been deeply affected by it. I have learned it's spoken and written history and I understand it was a sacred place by people who lived here before me. I have been collaborating with the island to make photographs there, using the elements I can find: sun, water, salt, to make photo sensitive materials and learn more about what might have happened there through the images I make.

I'm assuming the artist's statement is mainly about the island, not you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

An artist's statement tells the viewer what lead the artist to create that particular work or body of art. I can be about a single piece or a whole project, even about the artists practice in general. Why, what and how. Nothing about the artist is required. If the reader can glean something personal about the artist from this statement, so be it.

Isn't it more important to understand what the photos mean, the background of what they show? Does it really matter that the guy became interested in photography when his uncle gave him a Kodak box camera for his twelfth birthday? Of course, if there's something related in the pictures to his life, then that would be interesting to know.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

An artist statement is a tool, just like any other promotional or informational piece of writing, to get someone else to want to look at the artist's work. It may offer insight into the work itself or it may offer insight into the reason the artist did the work - those are not necessarily the same.

Of course an artist statement is good for an artist. Of course it is especially useful for unknown artists. When an viewer approaches an unknown, he or she is seeing it without a context. Context is extremely important for being able to understand and appreciate anything. The other works by the same artist can be a context, if the view is aware of their existence. An artist statement places a single work in relation to what the artist explicitly says. Every advantage available should be used by someone trying to get people to seriously look at the work.

Think about a photo on a book page. Even a caption keeps your eyes on the page just a little longer, might make you look back at the photo and examine it more closely.

And, John, Alan is right when he said most people don't care about artist statements. Most people don't care about artists. Except for a handful of them, even the "famous" photographers are not known outside of photography - even though people may be familiar with their photos. (The same is true of painters.) Art, artists, and artist statements are well outside the realm of concern for most people. And that's not insulting. That's just how it happens to be.

I had an experience that shows just how unimportant artist's statements are to some people.

A few years back, I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers, or IPAD, as it's more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory, in NYC. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers apparently sell his stuff. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000 and the last at around $140,000.

So I'm standing at the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition, when in floats this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty-something-year-old dressed to kill. She, a knock-out blond about half his age. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away arm in arm, he had a devilish smile on his face. And she, well, I think she looked impressed. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he had an Adams Hernandez. I was impressed that he had such a hot girlfriend. Even the dealer selling the Hernandez seemed impressed as he winked at me in agreement.

So much for artists' statements.

 

[jnamia]

I'm assuming the artist's statement is mainly about the island, not you.

that's up for debate.

So much for artist's statements.

sorry for my cluelessness, but what does your post have to do with artist statements? It's a story about some lecherous, creepy 50something year old guy picking up "hot girl 1/2 his age". ... regarding AA's "artist statement" I think the Sierra Club long time affiliation was his artist statement...

 

[Don_ih]

Whether or not "laypeople" are interested in artist statements is actually pretty irrelevant. The people an artist has to deal with to promote and distribute the work are most certainly interested in artist statements. Art is not something that explains itself - a great deal of it is inscrutable and doesn't inspire a second glance on its own. Perhaps very good art does, but most art is like most of everything else: mediocre.

 

[VinceInMT]

And, John, Alan is right when he said most people don't care about artist statements. Most people don't care about artists. Except for a handful of them, even the "famous" photographers are not known outside of photography - even though people may be familiar with their photos. (The same is true of painters.) Art, artists, and artist statements are well outside the realm of concern for most people. And that's not insulting. That's just how it happens to be.

The “Art, artists, and artist statements are well outside the realm of concern for most people.” is, IMO, a true statement. I just had the solo show reception for my BFA exhibition and about 30 or so friends showed up for it and stayed my 5-minute artist talk. When I had handed them the postcard invitation, most of them told me they had never gone to art exhibition before. One of my best friends has been drug to numerous museums/galleries in New York by his kids when he visits there and he says he usually finds a bench to sit on while they look at stuff that he doesn’t understand. He even texted me once which photo of a sculptural installation and asked me “Why is this art?” Of course, this applies to many other areas of interests. I’ve never been to an opera, a rodeo, a sporting event, or a branding so we all lack a bit of cultural literacy on some front.

 

[Pieter12]

An artist statement is a tool, just like any other promotional or informational piece of writing, to get someone else to want to look at the artist's work. It may offer insight into the work itself or it may offer insight into the reason the artist did the work - those are not necessarily the same.

Of course an artist statement is good for an artist. Of course it is especially useful for unknown artists. When an viewer approaches an unknown, he or she is seeing it without a context. Context is extremely important for being able to understand and appreciate anything. The other works by the same artist can be a context, if the view is aware of their existence. An artist statement places a single work in relation to what the artist explicitly says. Every advantage available should be used by someone trying to get people to seriously look at the work.

Think about a photo on a book page. Even a caption keeps your eyes on the page just a little longer, might make you look back at the photo and examine it more closely.

And, John, Alan is right when he said most people don't care about artist statements. Most people don't care about artists. Except for a handful of them, even the "famous" photographers are not known outside of photography - even though people may be familiar with their photos. (The same is true of painters.) Art, artists, and artist statements are well outside the realm of concern for most people. And that's not insulting. That's just how it happens to be.

Very true. It must be pointed out that an artist's statement always accompanies work, so there is context for both. People don't usually read the statement to determine if they want to see the work, but in many situations the work is seen with ever reading the statement.

As far as people most people not caring about artist's statements outside the art world, most people don't know or care about any of the arts in any form except mass-market drivel.

 

[jnamia]

And, John, Alan is right when he said most people don't care about artist statements. Most people don't care about artists. Except for a handful of them, even the "famous" photographers are not known outside of photography - even though people may be familiar with their photos. (The same is true of painters.) Art, artists, and artist statements are well outside the realm of concern for most people. And that's not insulting. That's just how it happens to be

I didn't find it to be insulting at all, just a sad statement. I am also remembering what a curator, critic, writer &c told me though, the shorter the better because people spend only about 9-15 seconds reading wall writing before they move on, I told her the same thing, I always read it! LOL
still very sad especially after the person spent months crafting just the write obscure and obtuse wordage and references to 18th century philosophers &c to make the photos of the puppies something else. oh well ...
I think people care more about the art of being a celebrity than anything else, seeing a celebrity is an art in itself.. 15 minutes and all that.

 

[Pieter12]

people spend only about 9-15 seconds reading wall writing before they move on

I recall there was a study done where they found that people spent more time reading the wall tag descriptions than looking at the art on display!

 

[jnamia]

I recall there was a study done where they found that people spent more time reading the wall tag descriptions than looking at the art on display!

LOL. good times!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recall there was a study done where they found that people spent more time reading the wall tag descriptions than looking at the art on display!

That is what I do and that is what I would expect most people do.

 

[Pieter12]

That is what I do and that is what I would expect most people do.

It is unfortunate that what seems to interest most people is the title and who the artist is, when and where the piece was done rather than the art itself. People art taken in by, "ooh that's [insert title] by so-and-so," rather than how the actual art impacts them. I do prefer (usually gallery shows) where the art is just numbered and you can refer to a sheet for the pertinent information.

 

[DREW WILEY]

People have probably been pontificating over artwork as long as it's existed. After all, not just anyone could enter a sacred cave and illustrate it. If they could, Altamira and Lascaux would probably be ignored today. Plus any kind of surplus anything career-wise, whether lawyers or art teachers, have to find some sort of pigeonhole if they're going to eat. Not everyone is skilled tossing a pizza, and has to find some kind of option equally messy if they lose control, which pretty much explains where Art-speak / Art-splat comes from - using cheap over-flavored ingredients as a substitute for real insight.

 

[VinceInMT]

It is unfortunate that what seems to interest most people is the title and who the artist is, when and where the piece was done rather than the art itself.

Evidenced by the hordes trying to take a selfie with the Mona Lisa.

 

[VinceInMT]

Regarding the “label” that appears next to a displayed piece of art, (and I acknowledge that even the use of “label” is controversial) I mentioned earlier here or on another thread that I find it curious that with photography it is not uncommon to see technical data such an camera model, lens, type of film, exposure data, paper used, etc., even seen on the Gallery on this site. Why is that? With other media it might note “oil on canvas” or “ink on paper” but the brand of oil, the type of brushes used, and that type of thing is generally not included.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Evidenced by the hordes trying to take a selfie with the Mona Lisa.

Yes I saw hoards doing that with one hand raised palm up as if to indicate that it was their work of art. Oh, so lame. Also walking around in Paris starring at the phones either reading or looking to view what was around them rather than look directly at the world. Heaven Forbid that they ever actually use their eyes to see something. And why not? They can make any scene they want by drawing or stealing an image and using FauxTow$hop to add themself to make the selfie of their desire.

 

[MattKing]

They can make any scene they want by drawing or stealing an image and using FauxTow$hop to add themself to make the selfie of their desire.

But they don't - they actually travel to the place itself.
Involving themselves in something interesting by creating a selfie is lame, but at least they made the effort to get there.
Even if they end up being immersed in a selfie creating horde, they still might gain at least a little bit of benefit from actually viewing something which is undeniably "Fine Art".

 

[NB23]

Fine art is when you see something you like and you say to yourself “that’s fine, I like it”.

And then the artist asks you if you wanna buy it and you answer “no, it’s fine, thanks”.

Fine art.

 

[DonJ]

Regarding the “label” that appears next to a displayed piece of art, (and I acknowledge that even the use of “label” is controversial) I mentioned earlier here or on another thread that I find it curious that with photography it is not uncommon to see technical data such an camera model, lens, type of film, exposure data, paper used, etc., even seen on the Gallery on this site. Why is that? With other media it might note “oil on canvas” or “ink on paper” but the brand of oil, the type of brushes used, and that type of thing is generally not included.

I’ve never seen that info posted with a photo at an exhibition. It’s often posted here because the participants are interested in technique as well as content.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Here's my artist's statement if you're interested. Likes nature. Admires beauty. Has an impulse for the oddball.

I call that a good start; and a lot clearer and succinct that most. Kind of like saying "why am I doing this?" and "what exactly am I doing?"

 

[Don_ih]

It is unfortunate that what seems to interest most people is the title and who the artist is, when and where the piece was done rather than the art itself

Most art is mundane and unimpressive. Even the "greatest" art will still not "speak to" everyone - it will impact a greater number of people and possibly deeply, though. Most art doesn't really inspire more than a glance.

As for selfies with the Mona Lisa. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa thousands of times (although not the original). The selfie is about being in the place more than having to do with the artwork as art. It's more art as phenomenon. An experience is to be noted with a picture of your face bearing your own favourite expression.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Regarding the “label” that appears next to a displayed piece of art, (and I acknowledge that even the use of “label” is controversial) I mentioned earlier here or on another thread that I find it curious that with photography it is not uncommon to see technical data such an camera model, lens, type of film, exposure data, paper used, etc., even seen on the Gallery on this site. Why is that? With other media it might note “oil on canvas” or “ink on paper” but the brand of oil, the type of brushes used, and that type of thing is generally not included.

I thought that was considered normal information when I first came on this site. Maybe a leftover from the "Popular Photography" days. I was just thinking about dropping that info from my web site. It probably is still useful for the gallery images here. Does this tech focus make us look like "hobbyists" to the "art" world?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But they don't - they actually travel to the place itself.
Involving themselves in something interesting by creating a selfie is lame, but at least they made the effort to get there.
Even if they end up being immersed in a selfie creating horde, they still might gain at least a little bit of benefit from actually viewing something which is undeniably "Fine Art".

But they spend all their time looking at the screen rather than their surroundings. Why bother to go on the trip in the first place when they have internet and television?

 

[Arthurwg]

What about specific examples of supposed "fine art" or artists? I rather detest the work of Andy Warhol and Jean-Michel Basquiat, for example, which in both cases are close to garbage IMHO. What makes them "fine artists"?