Theoretical Density, 24 x 36 inches, acrylic on canvas, ©2010 Deidre Adams
Even with a rather full plate of graphic design work in the past couple of weeks, I’ve been very focused on getting some paintings done. I’ve settled into a routine: Wake up, go into the studio and contemplate what I did the day before, then put on some more layers. Then, while those are drying, go downstairs, get my coffee & cereal, and do design work for a few hours. Then maybe exercise on those days I’m not successful in talking myself out of it, and then after lunch, reward myself with studio time. The paradox for me is that the busier I am, the more I’m able to concentrate in the studio. If I have nothing much else going on, I tend to procrastinate and waste time on the computer instead of staying focused.
I’ve been feeling energized and excited about my work. I have lots of new paintings that I’ll be posting in the coming weeks. Now that I’m out of school, I’m momentarily free of being forced to say what my work is about, and this is liberating. I can just do whatever I like, continuing to explore and discover new things about how the paints and mediums and tools work, developing an intimate understanding of what it is I like to see in my own work in regard to form and process.
Theoretical Density (detail), ©2010 Deidre Adams
However, I belong to a Yahoo group of artists where the topic of meaning in art seems to recur on a regular basis. There are always those who say adamantly that a work of art has to have some kind of meaning, or it’s not truly art. I don’t agree with this myself, at least not in the sense that I think it’s intended. For me, a visceral response to a work of art comes primarily through my physical experience of it, and for purposes of simplicity, I’m going to say that’s visual, since that’s the kind of art I work with. If I don’t find myself engaging with a painting or an art quilt or a sculpture on a visual level, then the meaning behind it is automatically rendered irrelevant for me.
Of course, everyone experiences art differently, and this can be very personal for some. I’m curious to know what you think about this. If you disagree, please tell me. (By the way, Robert Genn of The Painter’s Keys wrote an interesting take on this in his newsletter, under the topic “The Bigger Questions.”)
I have a lot of ideas that go through my mind when I’m working. I’ve been reading and thinking about various aspects of physics, biology, and linguistics. There are lots of possibilities for context. Is it important to you as the viewer to know specifically what I had in mind when you see one of my paintings? Or can you be satisfied to experience it on a visual level, free to make your own associations?
When I go into a gallery, my first pass is to just look at what’s there. Then I find the artist statement. About half the time, the artwork will be more appealing to me because I know the ‘meaning’ of it. In general, however, I need to connect on a visual level or the ‘meaning’ isn’t of much interest to me. There have been times that I’ve sought out an exhibit because I wanted to see what an artist made and the only information I have is what had to say about their motivation.
So, I’d say that I tend to like to know what the artist had in mind, but if I fall in love with the work, it doesn’t matter what they meant.
I love, love your work. Your earlier work in particular. Happy art making!
Meaning is not important to me when looking at your art or anyone else’s unless there is a lot of text. Color draws me in first, then composition, texture, and way down the line technique, although occasionally unique or unusual technique dazzles me.
I think you actually do have a lot of meaning in your paintings. This is evidenced by your last paragraph. I see “aspects of physics, biology, linguistics” in your artwork. Whether you state it or not, it is there. I love what you’re doing and congratulations on your very productive and satisfying studio time!
deidre…you and i are so much alike!!! i waste much time when my days are wide open and get so much done in the studio when pressed for time. i wish i could train myself to go into the studio first thing though. instead i exercise as i am not a morning person. i go before i can talk myself out of it. your new work is so stunning. i could look at it for hours.
I agree with Mona. I will go into a show, gallery or museum & let myself be drawn to what draws me. I will stand & study, let it soak into me on all levels. Then, if there is an artist statement there, I will read it. Often, it adds another layer to go back & peruse, holding that in mind. But if their idea while creating the piece does not connect with me, it does not lessen my enjoyment, & I don’t feel that to appreciate art.
Sorry~ the last sentence should be: I don’t feel that I need that to appreciate art.
Thanks everyone, for your comments. I do agree with the comments that understanding the artist’s intent does enhance the enjoyment. But for me, that matters more when the work is narrative or representational and the meaning is not clear. When the work is strictly abstract, I’m not sure that it matters. The visual impact is what draws me in and keeps me there.
Hello Deidre,
I think that the most important thing is that a piece of art appeals to you and that you can have your own associations and thoughts. I think you can consider it your job as an artist that you give people, who themselves think they cannot make art, the chance to reflect their own thoughts and emotions into the art you provide them with. I think that is a great compliment for the artist.
Did I explain myself right?
Meta
Meta, I agree with you, both from the perspective of a viewer and an artist. If I’m looking at a painting and enjoying my own interpretation, the statement can sometimes enhance the enjoyment, but it could also have the opposite effect if it seems disingenuous, if it’s too full of “artspeak” or seems pompous. From the other end, I love to have a conversation with a viewer of my own work who saw something completely different in the work than what I intended. To me, that’s a gift.
I use the same term as you – visceral response. For me the visceral response *is* the meaning. I almost always find that artists’ statements are unhelpful (except where there is a very literal explanation of the narrative or representation in the work). I think this is because of a mismatch between literary and visual languages – the artist is obliged (because of the curious insistence on having a written statement) to try to express in words what he or she is actually much more comfortable expressing in visual terms. And from the viewer’s point of view, if you understand the visual language, why would you need the words?
Catherine, very insightful. “A mismatch between literrary and visual languages” … I believe I’ve often experienced that but never had the words to describe it. Isn’t that why so many of us become visual artists – we can’t express everything we need to in words?
Now, having said that, I’m going to go publish some more words.