Two Funny Videos

First, Charlotte Young's "Artist's Statement." That only works for younger artists; older ones learn to make their statements so opaque that they can't even be subtitled.

Next, a brief crime video proving that it's possible for cameras to be too small. I love the brief inadvertent portrait of the gimlet-eyed thief near the end.

Mike
(Thanks to Jay Townsend and Ed Kuipers)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

[m3photo]

Only British humour can produce replies such as the one by "MrGrabich" to the "Artist's Statement."

[Chad Thompson]

One of my favorites making the rounds. The Arty Bollocks Generator

[Jon Levi]

Absolutely the best accidental footage I've ever seen. I can re-live that flight over and over again!

[Steve Jacob]

Dear Mike, I have passed the first link and the one from Chad Thompson around some of my friends to universal approval. Much appreciated.

But I wonder what your take is on artists' statements in general, or at least on accompanying commentary to works of art?

In a brief conversation with the estimable Ctein, he believes the work should speak for itself and the viewer should decide. A lot of artists agree of course and most of the time, I probably do as well.

But I am not really that satisfied with my own subjective critical analysis when I simply don't understand entirely what I am looking at. I don't really think a statement like "I don't like that" or "it's boring" is enough when considering something like the Dusseldorf school, for instance.

My uncle was an art teacher and he explained a lot of the thinking and symbolism behind modern and contemporary art, as well as some of the technical differences between some of the old masters. I'm really not sure I would have such a wide appreciation of art and photography without that background.

Cindy Sherman is a good example. After the post about the price of one of her images I actually spent some time looking her up and developed a much greater appreciation for her contribution to the art world as a result. I'm not sure I can bring myself to like much of it, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I can at least understand what she was trying to do and judge her on that. Price is really a bit of a red herring.

One thing I am sure of though. Describing art does not have to be done in artbabble. My uncle was from Liverpool and a very direct and plain speaker he was too. One of the reasons he was such an excellent teacher.

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

How she manages to make her sermon without wince is really great. I always thought women cannot be funny - now I have to reconsider and change my opinion.

[Paul Luscher]

I like the first video. From what I've seen, a lot of the art world is about pure pretentiousness. I mean the use of a lot of turgid and polysyllabic rhetoric to cover up the fact that--like the emperor's new clothes--there ain't really much there, and quite often that includes talent, too...

I mean, how else could people, back in he 80s, have been deluded into thinking that three basketballs floating around a fish tank should be considered as a meaningful piece of "art"?

[Mike Johnston]

"I always thought women cannot be funny"

Seriously?!? Of my three favorite comedians on Comedy Central, two are women—Maria Bamford and Kathleen Madigan. You should look up their Comedy Central Specials--they're wonderful.

Mike

[Dennis Allshouse]

I used to be totally in the Ctein camp. Then I heard the idea: If you don't make a statement about your work some one else will. Thereby you would lose the initiative in establishing the basis for interpretation. This may make more sense in the context of a specific body of work ie series or essay rather than a single item.