Artist statements

I found it interesting that our guest speaker (Elizabeth) told us that curators aren't particularly interested in artist statements. I believe she said to keep the statements short and sweet. I am glad she said this, and that the impression created by the work is what really counts. I think that this is how it should be. This confirms my suspicion that the art department policy of having grads write thesis statements is a waste of time. In fact, I think it is counterproductive, because it forces you to rationalize what you are doing; when in fact, making art is not a rational process. The artist statement is always an afterthought, because if one were to start with a coherent statement, they wouldn't be able to create art. They would be illustrating a set of concepts, in some didactic or prosaic way. Unfortunately, the intuitive model, which really almost everyone follows, is frowned upon by some of the faculty here. It is my feeling that any truly successful artist is fundamentally intuitive in their creative process.
-JP

Artist's models

Concerning the reading that dealt with artist's models. I was wondering whether or not the models were valid. But then it occured to me that the models could really apply to any kind of public figure; seeing as though they are so general. Here's a little thought experiment, in which I used the models to describe professional athletes.

Skilled worker: Pedro Martinez
Rule breaker: Mike Tyson
Intellectual: Greg Maddox
Naive Talent: Babe Ruth
Entrepeneur: George Forman
Economic failure: Mike Tyson
Social critic: Mohammed Ali
Social parasite: Barry Bonds
Social healer: Jackie Robinson
Charlattan: Floyd Landis

These models could also be applied to politicians, CEO's, preachers, talk show hosts, etc.

-JP

Why we are artists?

Part of the discussion in the last class revolved around why people choose to be artists and not doctors or lawyers. One of my professors in undergrad once told the class that all artists are manic-depressives. I disagreed whole-heartedly at the time. First of all, to claim that every single anything is a manic depressive seems like quite a stretch. But sometimes I think that this exaggeration my have a kernel of truth. Back to the question of why one chooses art, it may be more of a matter of art choosing the individual. A passage from a book I read by Ernest Becker called The Denial of Death for me sheds light on this. It says that "the key to the creative type is that he or she is separated out of the pool of shared meaning. There is something in their life experience that makes them take in the world as a problem; as a result they have to make personal sense out of it... Existence becomes a problem that needs an ideal answer; but when you no longer accept the collective solution to the problem of existence, then you must fashion your own." This perhaps a little too simple statement sums up for me why I, and perhaps many others become artists. I cannot help but take the world as a problem, and it always appears as a connundrum. So by turning away from the world, one can try to create an analogous one in which one has some control.