tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post2727643019963388045..comments2024-01-29T00:22:36.258-08:00Comments on e y e C O N T A C T: In a silent wayJohn Hurrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-47758646560446509922009-01-06T18:04:00.000-08:002009-01-06T18:04:00.000-08:00Great to get your contribution, John, and it may b...Great to get your contribution, John, and it may be as you sensitively imply, that I am too preoccupied with 'instruction' - a result perhaps of working at different times in municipal art institutions.<BR/><BR/>Like you, I place high value on the power of the written word. After all I have set up this site, greatly enjoy conversations like the one we are having, and often make art using texts. Yet I do not think it is a certainty that art itself is 'language, afterall' - as you put it. The two are clearly connected but they are not interchangeable.<BR/><BR/>The role of the essay in a gallery can be one that floats free of the act of viewing the art, but in providing another cognitive experience it runs the risk of creating static, of interfering with the mental processes of attending to the work.<BR/>Clearly artists can decide such issues for themselves. What works best for them.<BR/><BR/>Lately I've been looking at some discussions of Ron Silliman's 'New Sentence' concept, where lines within certain poems or texts are deliberately independent of those on either side. Calculated non sequiturs in other words, that avoid any logical continuity or narrative threads.<BR/><BR/>To pick an extreme, it is possible to have essays that uphold this position in relation to the art, just as it is to have clashing unconnected components within shows like say those of Dan Arps that (at times)do the same. Yet what the artist might lose in audience comprehension (which audience I hear you say?...there are several) they gain in a sort of agonist stance, a confrontational rhetoric. Some might say 'a posturing of radicality.'<BR/><BR/>I find though I sometimes greatly enjoy the essays they often seem to be in the wrong context and should go somewhere else. They end up being irritating obstacles that compete with and not aid the art. They cut into the art experience, or mess with the art sensation, not having anything to do with issues of instruction or clarity, but making things unnecessarily complicated.<BR/><BR/>Part of this is a result of the ideology of universities, which is not the same as the ideology of art practice. Universities promote a certain method of articulating thought through the use of words. Artists gaining degrees buy into that, and it is a reasonable expectation that they do so. Yet to make art and be good at it involves other skiils too. Some artists might even have no language skills at all, and that reflects no failure on their practice, only on getting qualified to teach.<BR/><BR/>What I'm getting at with all this is that verbal dexterity is a handy tool for thinking and for communication, but not essential for art. Art is far wider. I suspect academic circles (read 'galleries for post-graduates') often forget that.John Hurrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-60397262461441913902009-01-06T15:36:00.000-08:002009-01-06T15:36:00.000-08:00I can't presume to speak for the entirety of the n...I can't presume to speak for the entirety of the newcall writing program, nor that of windows, but I would like to elucidate on the merits of writing for a pinch of time.<BR/><BR/>My understanding of the purpose of writing is to provide an additional realm of discursive activity, seperate though intertwined with the artwork on show. I don't think writing should strive to historicise artwoks by stating their factual attributes, the artists intentions or the intrinsic educational values surrounding the piece.<BR/><BR/>Comprehension of the artwork is something that surely the art should inspire, being language afterall. The texts that are produced with this in mind (I am thinking of Emma Phillipps piece at newcall, of my own various pieces, and perhaps Cherie Laceys piece for Sonya Laceys window show) are made with a high value for the power of the written word as something with its own deep subleties and not simply as an index for the artwork. <BR/><BR/>The function of these pieces of writing is not instruction. For example, the structure of Emma Phillipps piece served as a literary counterpoint to Sam Rountree Williams paintings, echoing the illusory forms and evasive content. There was a sort of transliteration at play. With Cherie Laceys piece, the sentiment of the writing produced a reflective state which infused your approach to the artwork. <BR/><BR/>On that note, I think often the texts are produced with the value of an artwork. This is certainly true in Laceys, and in some instances in my own.<BR/><BR/>RegardsJohn Ward Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600041074711917305noreply@blogger.com