I loved this piece! It brings to mind a book I have called Art as Therapy by Alain de Botton (the guy from School of Life if you're familiar with that YouTube channel.) From reading this, I feel like you'd probably enjoy it. He states a lot of similar sentiments about problems with the modern art world and museums and galleries. A lot of these spaces make art intentionally cryptic and difficult for the public to engage with. It kind of renders art pointless in my opinion. It's stuffy and boring, and doesn't really seem to serve any purpose other than massaging the ego of the artist or anyone who's in "the club." If art continues down this path it will certainly not survive. I can't wait to read more of your work!
Wandered over here after seeing your post in the Substack Writers at Work office party. I very much enjoyed this essay, particularly your thoughts on what art is supposed to offer us. Thank you for sharing!
loved this article. will read it again several times/bookmark it. tons to chew on.
1) i find wall texts extremely frustrating. i find the need for them also a bit baffling. when i'm in a room with art, i just want to feel something. i am a writer and i spend so much time with "text" that it's exhausting, honestly... i admire work that conveys feeling with only gesture, motion, shape, pigment, etc. i dislike it when overtly smart-sounding "thinking" invades the space between a work and my reaction to it.
2) as far as disrupting a plaza, it's clearly an incredibly intrusive and uncomfortable thing to have laid down. but how many people crossed that space daily without giving it a second thought? the tilted arc forces everyone into a confrontation with a space that they'd probably just assumed would always be there. at risk of being macho about this... i do find something deeply satisfying or appealing in the direct, aggressive gesture of that giant slab of metal in the middle of a really banal, really white-collar office park type space... quite radical in its brute-force way...
Great points Alex--both about the text and about the confrontational nature of the piece. I think your comment about liking the brute force of direct aggressive gesture in the banality of that white collar office plaza is a really legitimate point--personally, though, I still bet the idea of that confrontational piece is better in theory than it was living with it in practice. So much to think about! I Thank you for sharing your honest gut reactions, I love having this kind of discussion!
Thank you for putting this "yes, and" idea so front center. It is such a useful mind reset-in writing, in collaborating, in the visual and tactile arts. When I was trying to think of a good example of yes, and art, Toshiko MacAdam's wonderful crocheted playgrounds came to mind. Do you know them? They are amazing, sadly I can't figure out how to post a picture here...
WOW, I did NOT know about her work but just looked her up! What a great twist on our usual ideas of 'public art' --including making artwork that is designed around children and play. (also so female in its inception, expression, use--very opposite of Richard Serra.) I'm thrilled you brought her to my attention--thank you!
Yes, she crochets all her stuff by hand. No machines, no mining. I love the idea of comparing her with Serra (whose work I admire) and am trying to imagine the somatic feeling of experiencing their work side by side—a kind of yin yang mindfuck of a sculpture garden…maybe
Sarah... I thank you so much for communicating your journey and your thoughts about art. "Yes and No" has hit home with me because I'm nearing the midpoint of a series for an exhibit this fall and then there's the obligatory accompanying narrative to present. I love the "food for thought" you've shared. I look forward to each weekly newsletter.
Oh I'm glad Pat! Your work definitely offers the viewer narrative, emotion, history and heart, so people will have no trouble connecting! But it's always a challenge to write up the artist's statement, to express the meaning you are hoping to convey, etc. Will you be giving an artist's talk?
Yes, I will be Sarah. So funny, early in my career I always wondered, "why the hell do I need to say anything, there's the art?!? I now understand that there are those that seek deeper understanding, thus making for deeper connection. The series I'm working on are visual vignettes of my native Eastern Shore with a desire to share with the viewer, people and places that are somewhat off the beaten path. Tentatively the exhibit is scheduled for November.
Yes! You know, I've always offered an explanation for each of my pieces--wanting to give someone 'an avenue in' even while also hoping to allow them their own interpretation. Nowadays, I find myself struggling more often to provide that language and think--"Well, There's the art!" hahaha--almost like a reverse of your experience. :D
I think some explanation is often helpful for non-represntational work especially. But even with representational work that is so connected to land, history, forgotten history, an extended sense of family like yours, I think it adds a richness. I'm sure people attending will appreciate hearing the deeper stories around the people and places that you have painted. Story is such a huge piece of human culture, I think we forget sometimes how much.
Time has shown that it has been advantageous for me to add a "story" with my work. People love storytelling. Sarah, I believe this series will be the most encompassing of all the previous ones mainly because, at this period of my life and career, I desire to return to that childlike curiosity that I felt when I first experimented with oil paints. It fascinated me. Then when I entered the professional arena, everything went second nature at times, just going through the motions. Lately my interest in the elements of art have superseded "what is the crowd looking for" mode. I felt I needed to do what I had to do to survive... financially. Especially here on the glorious Lower Eastern Shore of MD. :D
I deeply connect with this Pat--how are art is affected by sales vs strictly listening to my muse vs some combination therein--has been on my mind a lot the past year and a half. When we need to sell work to pay the bills, the pressures to deliver what people want are real. And yet, sometimes when we really follow our hearts, we find people might be more receptive than we'd imagined!
Lately I've seen that happening more often as my career has evolved. And because there's not the sense of dread over "where the next meal coming from" I've been able to search deeper into what's calling me "down there". Although subsidized by the Medici patrons, Michelangelo lamented every day while working on the Sistine Chapel. Monet bitched to his wife and patron Doctor and friend by letters about how he didn't think he knew what he was doing, painting wise, but eventually gained great fame for his work. So, I figured that in spite of trying circumstances in my own life, I'm going to "Just Do It!" :D
I think capital A Art has, by its own effort, made itself something that is feared/misunderstood/disliked/irrelevant . . . to most people. LIttle a art, though, is where there is opportunity, to me, to interest and engage folks who feel like they "don't gett art" or "have no artistic talent" or some other self-imposed story about why art isn't for them. Most of what I do that is art-related is to encourage people to try it. Nobody thinks twice about trying pickleball, ffs, why not grab a paint brush as easily as a paddle?! Thanks for keeping my brain in shape, Sarah.
I LOVE this "Little 'a' art" point Paula--thank you. I also love, 'nobody thinks twice about trying pickleball, ffs"! Art IS for everyone and everyone can choose what kind--little 'a' or capital "A" or craft or design or somewhere in between. And when we're talking about the making part, they all involve all the same principles!
I love this idea that art should be a dialogue with the viewer, and give something to the viewer.
I grew up being taught that if I didn't understand some piece of contemporary art, it was because I didn't have a sufficient background in art history -- that it was my fault, as you discuss in your piece.
Fortunately, I have gotten over that, at least enough to enjoy looking at contemporary art, and just taking it in and seeing how I respond to it and what I think. Sometimes, surely, I would understand more if I were an artist or an art historian, but certainly that training should not always be necessary. I am a human being and respond to art.
So yes, I agree that art should indeed GIVE something to the viewer, not just demand things.
I have that same experience with contemporary classical music. I love to listen and attend in person, even though I'd probably have a richer experience if I were more educated about the trends and changes in classical music or if I played an instrument. But if I'm having an emotional response to the music, I feel gratified and I also feel like the more that I experience the music directly, the more depth it offers.
What a fascinating discussion! I write as a self-taught researcher on surrealist art because of the direct emotional effect it has on me and because of the stories I see in the paintings (which I post as 'imaginary encounters' here on Substack).
But an artist friend of mine said he didn't like the surrealists precisely because he felt he needed to know 'the code' or the key, and felt excluded so that shows yet again how accessibility of meaning is so very subjective.
The plaza sounds awful and I love the way it has galvanised you into writing here. And I entirely agree that if a piece of art means nothing at all (even to just one person) without the explanation on the gallery notice then in many ways it has failed.
Your friend's response to the surrealists is interesting--wanting to know 'the code' and feeling excluded. Maybe they could look at Frida Kahlo--a person who the surrealists thought made surrealism, even though she was making extremely personal paintings about her feelings!
Yes, Frida Kahlo has been able to communicate very directly with viewers of recent times, helped by Madonna and the Selma Hayek film. It does annoy me a bit that she is the only name anyone knows of the women surrealists' especially as she wasn't part of the group at all. But I do love her work. My friend is a landscape painter and very eminent in his field and we enjoy arguing in a friendly way about surrealism!
I bet maybe Frida wouldn't be for him then. And I agree she gets a ton of airplay, but I've been obsessing about her lately and I truly appreciate her emotional directness in a way I didn't when I was young and in art school. I'm going to write about it this week in the newsletter I think. She hated Andre Breton which is kinda funny.
Great! Can't wait to read what you write about Frida. I'll be in Paris next week but will try to check in on the app. Quite a few women had problems with Breton. I've written a novel about the women surrealists which is coming out in the autumn and I had such fun dramatising his overly-chivalrous behaviour. He's a real puzzle, though, because he did appreciate creativity in women such as Leonora Carrington and there are some great quotes by him about valuing the feminine etc. This deserves an essay, or at least a whole post so I'll stop! Thanks for all your comments here and at my place too. Great to meet you!
My mother submitted a mural proposal to CityWalls to “fix” Tilted Arc. I wrote about it just before Serra passed. The timing was rather bizarre. She envisioned a marching line of sunflowers. She definitely believed in Pleasure for the viewer. And her CityWalls were never funded. (A true loss for Soho, especially) https://twohouses.substack.com/p/two-houses-news-carter-ratcliff
Wow, what a small world we live in. I loved reading about your mother's proposal to transform Tilted Arc. If she had, I'm sure he'd have blown a gasket--an audacious thing--but as you say, so was Tilted Arc. New York might have been a more interesting place back then...
I think Serra’s sculpture ‘Tilted Arc’ was a brilliant piece. I think it was his intention to disrupt and obstruct when taking into consideration the location was outside a federal building…one that houses agencies such as the FBI.
When the sculpture was removed, it was not repurposed. It was destroyed. Its purpose had already been fulfilled.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this! I also believe his intent was to disrupt and obstruct, but in everything I read about his comments, he never mentions that that was because he was objecting to the happenings inside the federal building. Have you ever read/heard him say that that was his intention? If so, please share with me as I'd love to read about that. I just read about another piece of his that was taken down in Paris a while back for a similar reason for the people living and working in the area. I never knew there was more than one until this morning when I saw that on Hyperallergic, I think. so appreciate your chiming in!
This also makes me think of a separate, but related topic. I often wonder about the use of text to describe and explain works of art -- the text that appears in exhibits.
I like to look at a piece first, before reading the text (or even the title of the work) to see what the work says to me on its own.
Sometimes, though, when I then read the text, it ends up really informing my view of the piece, enriching my perceptions as I continue to look at the work.
What I wonder about in these situations is: Should one need the text to get the impact of the work?
In this case, the text wasn't necessary, but it did have a big impact.
In other cases, though, I have felt that I didn't get much of anything until I read the explanation of the goal of the work. Was that me missing out or did the work not achieve its goal? (I don't have a specific example in mind right now; I will continue to think about this at future exhibits).
I was just discussing this issue this morning with the hubs and I really appreciate your bringing it up! I'm a fan of text that enriches one's experience of the work or that provides the viewer with an avenue in to the work. At the same time, I think sometimes text is used to compensate for what's missing--I was recently at a show where a huge amount of explanatory text filled the wall because the work itself offered so little on its own. It took more time to read it than it did to look at the work, which was practically meaningless without the text. My personal gauge for this is when I think, "Well thank God for the explanation on the wall, as I didn't get any of that from the piece itself!"
Yes, the experience you describe is exactly what I was referring to-- when the text is needed to compensate for what's missing in the work -- when the work is meaningless without the text.
I loved this piece! It brings to mind a book I have called Art as Therapy by Alain de Botton (the guy from School of Life if you're familiar with that YouTube channel.) From reading this, I feel like you'd probably enjoy it. He states a lot of similar sentiments about problems with the modern art world and museums and galleries. A lot of these spaces make art intentionally cryptic and difficult for the public to engage with. It kind of renders art pointless in my opinion. It's stuffy and boring, and doesn't really seem to serve any purpose other than massaging the ego of the artist or anyone who's in "the club." If art continues down this path it will certainly not survive. I can't wait to read more of your work!
Thank you Jeremy! And I'll check that book out!
Wandered over here after seeing your post in the Substack Writers at Work office party. I very much enjoyed this essay, particularly your thoughts on what art is supposed to offer us. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you Ramya!
loved this article. will read it again several times/bookmark it. tons to chew on.
1) i find wall texts extremely frustrating. i find the need for them also a bit baffling. when i'm in a room with art, i just want to feel something. i am a writer and i spend so much time with "text" that it's exhausting, honestly... i admire work that conveys feeling with only gesture, motion, shape, pigment, etc. i dislike it when overtly smart-sounding "thinking" invades the space between a work and my reaction to it.
2) as far as disrupting a plaza, it's clearly an incredibly intrusive and uncomfortable thing to have laid down. but how many people crossed that space daily without giving it a second thought? the tilted arc forces everyone into a confrontation with a space that they'd probably just assumed would always be there. at risk of being macho about this... i do find something deeply satisfying or appealing in the direct, aggressive gesture of that giant slab of metal in the middle of a really banal, really white-collar office park type space... quite radical in its brute-force way...
Great points Alex--both about the text and about the confrontational nature of the piece. I think your comment about liking the brute force of direct aggressive gesture in the banality of that white collar office plaza is a really legitimate point--personally, though, I still bet the idea of that confrontational piece is better in theory than it was living with it in practice. So much to think about! I Thank you for sharing your honest gut reactions, I love having this kind of discussion!
i'm sure it was a huge pain in the ass in reality LMAO
Thank you for putting this "yes, and" idea so front center. It is such a useful mind reset-in writing, in collaborating, in the visual and tactile arts. When I was trying to think of a good example of yes, and art, Toshiko MacAdam's wonderful crocheted playgrounds came to mind. Do you know them? They are amazing, sadly I can't figure out how to post a picture here...
WOW, I did NOT know about her work but just looked her up! What a great twist on our usual ideas of 'public art' --including making artwork that is designed around children and play. (also so female in its inception, expression, use--very opposite of Richard Serra.) I'm thrilled you brought her to my attention--thank you!
Yes, she crochets all her stuff by hand. No machines, no mining. I love the idea of comparing her with Serra (whose work I admire) and am trying to imagine the somatic feeling of experiencing their work side by side—a kind of yin yang mindfuck of a sculpture garden…maybe
hahahaha--LOVE that image of a yin yang mindfuck of a sculpture garden!
OMG, the phrase "yin yang mindfuck of a sculpture garden" is hilarious!
On a more serious note, I am also going to checkout Toshiko MacAdam!
Oh yay! I hope you enjoy her work.
Sarah... I thank you so much for communicating your journey and your thoughts about art. "Yes and No" has hit home with me because I'm nearing the midpoint of a series for an exhibit this fall and then there's the obligatory accompanying narrative to present. I love the "food for thought" you've shared. I look forward to each weekly newsletter.
Oh I'm glad Pat! Your work definitely offers the viewer narrative, emotion, history and heart, so people will have no trouble connecting! But it's always a challenge to write up the artist's statement, to express the meaning you are hoping to convey, etc. Will you be giving an artist's talk?
Yes, I will be Sarah. So funny, early in my career I always wondered, "why the hell do I need to say anything, there's the art?!? I now understand that there are those that seek deeper understanding, thus making for deeper connection. The series I'm working on are visual vignettes of my native Eastern Shore with a desire to share with the viewer, people and places that are somewhat off the beaten path. Tentatively the exhibit is scheduled for November.
Yes! You know, I've always offered an explanation for each of my pieces--wanting to give someone 'an avenue in' even while also hoping to allow them their own interpretation. Nowadays, I find myself struggling more often to provide that language and think--"Well, There's the art!" hahaha--almost like a reverse of your experience. :D
I think some explanation is often helpful for non-represntational work especially. But even with representational work that is so connected to land, history, forgotten history, an extended sense of family like yours, I think it adds a richness. I'm sure people attending will appreciate hearing the deeper stories around the people and places that you have painted. Story is such a huge piece of human culture, I think we forget sometimes how much.
Can't wait to see how it all turns out!
Time has shown that it has been advantageous for me to add a "story" with my work. People love storytelling. Sarah, I believe this series will be the most encompassing of all the previous ones mainly because, at this period of my life and career, I desire to return to that childlike curiosity that I felt when I first experimented with oil paints. It fascinated me. Then when I entered the professional arena, everything went second nature at times, just going through the motions. Lately my interest in the elements of art have superseded "what is the crowd looking for" mode. I felt I needed to do what I had to do to survive... financially. Especially here on the glorious Lower Eastern Shore of MD. :D
I deeply connect with this Pat--how are art is affected by sales vs strictly listening to my muse vs some combination therein--has been on my mind a lot the past year and a half. When we need to sell work to pay the bills, the pressures to deliver what people want are real. And yet, sometimes when we really follow our hearts, we find people might be more receptive than we'd imagined!
Lately I've seen that happening more often as my career has evolved. And because there's not the sense of dread over "where the next meal coming from" I've been able to search deeper into what's calling me "down there". Although subsidized by the Medici patrons, Michelangelo lamented every day while working on the Sistine Chapel. Monet bitched to his wife and patron Doctor and friend by letters about how he didn't think he knew what he was doing, painting wise, but eventually gained great fame for his work. So, I figured that in spite of trying circumstances in my own life, I'm going to "Just Do It!" :D
I think capital A Art has, by its own effort, made itself something that is feared/misunderstood/disliked/irrelevant . . . to most people. LIttle a art, though, is where there is opportunity, to me, to interest and engage folks who feel like they "don't gett art" or "have no artistic talent" or some other self-imposed story about why art isn't for them. Most of what I do that is art-related is to encourage people to try it. Nobody thinks twice about trying pickleball, ffs, why not grab a paint brush as easily as a paddle?! Thanks for keeping my brain in shape, Sarah.
I LOVE this "Little 'a' art" point Paula--thank you. I also love, 'nobody thinks twice about trying pickleball, ffs"! Art IS for everyone and everyone can choose what kind--little 'a' or capital "A" or craft or design or somewhere in between. And when we're talking about the making part, they all involve all the same principles!
I love this idea that art should be a dialogue with the viewer, and give something to the viewer.
I grew up being taught that if I didn't understand some piece of contemporary art, it was because I didn't have a sufficient background in art history -- that it was my fault, as you discuss in your piece.
Fortunately, I have gotten over that, at least enough to enjoy looking at contemporary art, and just taking it in and seeing how I respond to it and what I think. Sometimes, surely, I would understand more if I were an artist or an art historian, but certainly that training should not always be necessary. I am a human being and respond to art.
So yes, I agree that art should indeed GIVE something to the viewer, not just demand things.
I have that same experience with contemporary classical music. I love to listen and attend in person, even though I'd probably have a richer experience if I were more educated about the trends and changes in classical music or if I played an instrument. But if I'm having an emotional response to the music, I feel gratified and I also feel like the more that I experience the music directly, the more depth it offers.
Fascinated by this discussion and appreciating ALL the comments!
What a fascinating discussion! I write as a self-taught researcher on surrealist art because of the direct emotional effect it has on me and because of the stories I see in the paintings (which I post as 'imaginary encounters' here on Substack).
But an artist friend of mine said he didn't like the surrealists precisely because he felt he needed to know 'the code' or the key, and felt excluded so that shows yet again how accessibility of meaning is so very subjective.
The plaza sounds awful and I love the way it has galvanised you into writing here. And I entirely agree that if a piece of art means nothing at all (even to just one person) without the explanation on the gallery notice then in many ways it has failed.
Your friend's response to the surrealists is interesting--wanting to know 'the code' and feeling excluded. Maybe they could look at Frida Kahlo--a person who the surrealists thought made surrealism, even though she was making extremely personal paintings about her feelings!
Yes, Frida Kahlo has been able to communicate very directly with viewers of recent times, helped by Madonna and the Selma Hayek film. It does annoy me a bit that she is the only name anyone knows of the women surrealists' especially as she wasn't part of the group at all. But I do love her work. My friend is a landscape painter and very eminent in his field and we enjoy arguing in a friendly way about surrealism!
I bet maybe Frida wouldn't be for him then. And I agree she gets a ton of airplay, but I've been obsessing about her lately and I truly appreciate her emotional directness in a way I didn't when I was young and in art school. I'm going to write about it this week in the newsletter I think. She hated Andre Breton which is kinda funny.
Great! Can't wait to read what you write about Frida. I'll be in Paris next week but will try to check in on the app. Quite a few women had problems with Breton. I've written a novel about the women surrealists which is coming out in the autumn and I had such fun dramatising his overly-chivalrous behaviour. He's a real puzzle, though, because he did appreciate creativity in women such as Leonora Carrington and there are some great quotes by him about valuing the feminine etc. This deserves an essay, or at least a whole post so I'll stop! Thanks for all your comments here and at my place too. Great to meet you!
My mother submitted a mural proposal to CityWalls to “fix” Tilted Arc. I wrote about it just before Serra passed. The timing was rather bizarre. She envisioned a marching line of sunflowers. She definitely believed in Pleasure for the viewer. And her CityWalls were never funded. (A true loss for Soho, especially) https://twohouses.substack.com/p/two-houses-news-carter-ratcliff
Wow, what a small world we live in. I loved reading about your mother's proposal to transform Tilted Arc. If she had, I'm sure he'd have blown a gasket--an audacious thing--but as you say, so was Tilted Arc. New York might have been a more interesting place back then...
Thank you for reading!
Hi Sarah
I think Serra’s sculpture ‘Tilted Arc’ was a brilliant piece. I think it was his intention to disrupt and obstruct when taking into consideration the location was outside a federal building…one that houses agencies such as the FBI.
When the sculpture was removed, it was not repurposed. It was destroyed. Its purpose had already been fulfilled.
Anyway…my two cents.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this! I also believe his intent was to disrupt and obstruct, but in everything I read about his comments, he never mentions that that was because he was objecting to the happenings inside the federal building. Have you ever read/heard him say that that was his intention? If so, please share with me as I'd love to read about that. I just read about another piece of his that was taken down in Paris a while back for a similar reason for the people living and working in the area. I never knew there was more than one until this morning when I saw that on Hyperallergic, I think. so appreciate your chiming in!
This also makes me think of a separate, but related topic. I often wonder about the use of text to describe and explain works of art -- the text that appears in exhibits.
I like to look at a piece first, before reading the text (or even the title of the work) to see what the work says to me on its own.
Sometimes, though, when I then read the text, it ends up really informing my view of the piece, enriching my perceptions as I continue to look at the work.
That happened recently at an exhibit I liked quite a lot at a small museum here in New Jersey (Hunterdon Art Museum. (https://www.hunterdonartmuseum.org/exhibitions/kate-dodd-new-work/), seeing work by Kate Dodd (https://www.katedodd.com/outer-wear). I found the work really interesting just from looking at it, but reading the text, I found additional meaning and impact.
What I wonder about in these situations is: Should one need the text to get the impact of the work?
In this case, the text wasn't necessary, but it did have a big impact.
In other cases, though, I have felt that I didn't get much of anything until I read the explanation of the goal of the work. Was that me missing out or did the work not achieve its goal? (I don't have a specific example in mind right now; I will continue to think about this at future exhibits).
I was just discussing this issue this morning with the hubs and I really appreciate your bringing it up! I'm a fan of text that enriches one's experience of the work or that provides the viewer with an avenue in to the work. At the same time, I think sometimes text is used to compensate for what's missing--I was recently at a show where a huge amount of explanatory text filled the wall because the work itself offered so little on its own. It took more time to read it than it did to look at the work, which was practically meaningless without the text. My personal gauge for this is when I think, "Well thank God for the explanation on the wall, as I didn't get any of that from the piece itself!"
Yes, the experience you describe is exactly what I was referring to-- when the text is needed to compensate for what's missing in the work -- when the work is meaningless without the text.