I think, somewhere in this discussion, the words "artist's statement"
were mentioned. Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, I've always wondered at the
purpose of these pieces of writing. Sans statement, a piece or
collection stands free to be taken in, chewed, spit back out, stomped
upon, swept up, and thrown in the trash or storage. Is an artist's
statement intended to prolong or prevent the chewing? Intensify or
prevent the stomping? Or ensure its path into the archive or
institutional memory (in the case of perishable art)? As for chewing,
does it really matter what's being said just so long as it's being said?
I'm of the opinion that an artist's statement is a translation of a body
of work so that more people understand the purpose, assuming it's not
BS. Often required by galleries and such, do they serve more to save a
gallery staff the burden of communicating what the piece failed to do in
the first place? The wedding piece of discussion here, Lea's perception
was changed upon learning more about the process, while on it's own, the
piece was merely a gratuitously placed wedding memory.
As for performance art:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/performance-artist-shocks-us-out-of-apathetic-stup,251/
An less related, but very true:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-family-history-of-alcoholism-raises-risk-of,18863/
On 1/28/11 1:19 AM, Lea Murphy wrote:
I took a long lunch and revisited the Kemper hoping to find a docent
available. I was told that docent visits are by appointment only.
The woman at the desk asked if she could help me and I was only too
happy to let her know I had some questions about how two particular
pieces of art came to be hanging in the museum.
She asked which two and when I told her she agreed that the woman with
the red face was a piece she didn't care for at all, either.
Here is a link to the image:
http://messengerbird.com/news/2008/12/15/jaimie-warren/
But HOW did it land here, I asked.
It ends up that the creator, Jaimie Warren, GIFTED it to the museum.
Jaimie lives in Kansas City, is more of a performance artist than a
photographer (as I think of the term photographer) and does workshops
in collaboration with the museum, especially programs aimed at
interesting children in art. As best I understand it Jaimie does her
'performance art' by setting the stage for herself then hands her
camera off to someone else who takes the photograph. Is THAT a being a
photographer? Hmmmmm.
The very helpful woman at the desk further informed me that the Kemper
Museum has a team who recommends what purchases to make to the the
acquisitions team who in turn make recommendations to Mr. Kemper who
writes the checks and buys the art. The Kemper is privately owned and
open to all, free of charge.
Desk Helper completely understood my interest in how something so
unarty (my words) could be hanging in a museum.
She assured me that many voices and many sets of eyes look at each
piece acquired.
Gifting. That answered a lot of my questions.
So far as Tina Barney's wedding photograph is concerned, I sent an
email to a friend who is a docent at the Kemper and she wrote this in
reply:
That's a piece by Tina Barney. Love her or hate her. Anyway, she
takes photos that are posed to look as if they're NOT posed--sort of a
huge snapshot. She chooses the clothing (bridesmaid ca. 1965?) and
hair, and then goes for a story telling shot. When I've toured it
with kids, I've asked them to tell me what's going on--who's mad at
whom, etc. They love it. Great photography? I'll let you be the
judge of that.
Knowing it's a staged photo completely changes my perception of it. It
doesn't move it to the level of art in my mind but I can appreciate
that the photographer was striving to say something, get a rise out of
the viewer, that it wasn't an accident blown up really, really big and
hung on the museum wall.
These pieces, by the way, are part of the exhibit called Make it
Strange, Developing a Medium which presents images curated in order to
show photography's ability to represent things for 'what else they
are', the distanced approach to reality that offers viewers an
alternate mode of seeing. It hopes to demonstrate how photography
disrupts perception with a defamiliarizing effect.
*******
I feel very fortunate to live so close to two excellent museums, The
Nelson-Atkins Bloch Museum and The Kemper. By living close it's easy
to take advantage of what they exhibit, that they are open free to the
public makes it almost criminal not to go. To put your eyes so close
to a painting as to see the brush strokes that made it, to see
fingerprints of the artist who sculpted a piece or to gaze deep into
the tones of a photographic print made by a master is an overwhelming
experience. I am not ashamed to say I have left these museums with
tears in my eyes more often than not.
********
Kim, I wrote that I was uneducated in art not with any shame but to
show point of reference...basically that my views come from what I
see, read and think about what I've seen and read, not from having
spent hours in a classroom. I love that all the world...books,
magazines, the web, fellow artists, museums, galleries and my own
brain are my classroom. I try to learn a little something every day
and I'm usually successful.
Lea
your kids . my camera . we'll click
www.leamurphy.com <http://www.leamurphy.com>
