remarkably obtuse, not very clever, even unpleasant people

You can say that again!

using only beautiful people as models

Precisely. But seeing more deeply may produce a very different idea of what’s beautiful than a shallow, porn-like view. (Porn-like because the lust is wrapped up with a desire for mastery: I think this is sort of what feminist film critics mean by the male gaze.)

every good shot just looks like a postcard, and people are always wandering round photographing it

Imagine if one had never seen a picture of a sunset before, the photos one could take!

Bill – I think it’s safe to say you’ve done a lot more thinking about artists’ statements than I have. Good stuff! I like your point about the necessary inscrutability of them, and that’s a fun example. Thanks.

150 words on my work: In life you can do two things. In art you can do one thing. There are no decisions to make in art except one–that is the possibility of art, while the actuality (of it) is life-like. And that is why anything connected with art appears paradoxical, although that is not the goal of art. Art is discipline and discipline is drawing. Drawing will change before art will. Discipline is always the same. And we will never know what art is–except as the goal, which is already defined through necessity although not understood, is essentially abstract in nature or naturally abstracted, which is to say life- like, without hope. Because color is the most abstract evidence of/in art and because we are beginning to grasp certain specific abstracted experiences (which appear as forms in art) my work looks the way it does.
—Richard Tuttle

Artists’ statements must be frustrating and limiting to have to write; you write anyway and have a way with big ideas as well as small ones, but it must always feel like you haven’t said enough, or that the words are often treacherous, shifting, not quite right. Wasn’t there that story about Eliot being asked, at a social event perhaps, what a particular poem meant, and he recited it in its entirety and said: ‘ That’s what it meant.’ A small part of me would have wanted to slap him for that, but of course it’s obvious. And as Pete pointed out, artists often entertain angels unawares, can create things they aren’t necessarily fully aware of but others can find, can sometimes seem to be remarkably obtuse, not very clever, even unpleasant people, but inspiration and gift isn’t fussy like that.

I think I do still have a weakness for what you call the nature porn, though I find I look at it much more critically now. I’ve been looking at and reading about Charlie Waite’s landscapes, I do admire the light chasing perfectionism it takes to make them, especially as he only uses film, not digital, and he doesn’t entirely rely on the beauty of his subject matter – that seems rather like using only beautiful people as models. Yet somehow they make me feel a bit depressed, shake my faith in the beauty of the ordinary and commonplace I was finding.

I often wish for a closer urban environment for variety, but, as with wishing for more dramatic and beautiful landscape around me, I have to see this boredom as a challenge to break through it and see something else I hadn’t seen before. We’ve a very pretty small town nearby, which I love to look at, but every good shot just looks like a postcard, and people are always wandering round photographing it. I don’t find it very inspiring.

Your idea of making ‘ the roles of figure and ground … reversible, or even nonexistent’, is an interesting one, and gives me something to think about.

I know what Bill says is true, and it’s a despair at the core of my being, so largely I prefer to ignore it, which is self-evident, as not to do so is to make myself uncomfortable.

I use the viewfinder.

treating my whole existence, not to mention nature, like some kind of blow-up doll

Don’t we all?

my reigning truth is that the wholesale destruction of nature matters little to me in comparison with my blind need for immediate, and very local, comfort

Your candor is refreshing, Bill.

Once again, your eco-ethical rigor takes me by surprise.

art is not just a deliberate attempt to express what the artist feels, but arises also from motivations and understanding of which the artist might not even be aware.

An excellent and valuable point.

are you aware of Daniel Dancer’s views on what he termed “eco-pornâ€?, or Niall Benvie’s writing on the topic?

I think a professor friend of mine sent me a brief article from one or the other after I held forth on the subject a year or so back. But the concept is obvious.

Hey, rant all you want. I love comments like that!

The risk with artists’ statements is that any characteristic of the artwork that’s not identified in the statement might be dismissed as accidental, and, therefore, the artist will be denied credit for those characteristics. Just because the artist wasn’t conscious of those characteristics doesn’t mean he or she isn’t responsible for them. On the other hand, perhaps that suggests a possible reason why artists do write statements: for fear of being held responsible for something in the work for which they don’t wish to be credited?

Good statements complement the art; poor statements compete with it; the worst subvert it.

I’d like to say more, particularly about your intriguing statement that you believe compelling photos more difficult to achieve in woods and fields than in cities ( I find “landscapes” particularly difficult), and the notion of nature porn (are you aware of Daniel Dancer’s views on what he termed “eco-porn”, or Niall Benvie’s writing on the topic?). But I’ve ranted for long enough. Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Dave.

That said, it can be interesting to learn where an author or artist is coming from – ideally in non-academic language.