[Previous entry: "The Long Way Home"] [Next entry: "Is there an ‘art mafia’?"]

12/16/2005: "THE WRITING ON THE WALL" by Walter King

Tom Wolf was only a little off in suggesting in his famous book “The Painted Word” that painting would become an illustration to the text on the wall explaining what it meant. In fact by the mid 80’sThe text on the wall had often become the work itself. In fact painting (or sculpture- remember Robert Indiana’s famous sculpture of the word “LOVE” of the 60‘s?) has disappeared altogether in some instances as artists take their cues from art magazines and art professors who were not trained to draw or paint or sculpt themselves who had developed ways to circumvent those traditional disciplines. It has become a laughable joke inside some artist circles. The problem is that art as text, at least a large amount of it, is neither very visual nor verbally very elegant in any significant way. Most of it is cliché with little depth, open ended platitude and innuendo fit for any occasion or circumstance, the Hallmark Greeting Card of the art world in many cases. It often does with words what painters and sculptors are accused of doing with images in that it is little more than free floating word association. Some of it reminds me of those old books of quotes that can be so inspiring to a young mind beginning to grapple with the world of ideas. Some simply reeks of propaganda.

I remember when I was a small boy telling my mother I would clean my room tomorrow. She smiled and sweetly said “honey, tomorrow never comes…“ a phrase that I played like a loop for weeks in my mind as I began to understand the philosophical and temporal aspects of the saying. “Tomorrow never comes…” why I asked myself? Because it becomes today! What an epiphany for a 5 year old! An epiphany for a 16 year old interested in art cam when I first read the Picasso quote that “art is a lie that explains the truth” or Voltaires statement that “those who think absurdities eventually commit atrocities.“ I heard the Voltaire quote for the first time only a few days ago. I may be giving more credit to many word artists than they deserve when I suggest that some have discovered that the general audience is at about the same intellectual level as I was when my mother told me that tomorrow ceases to be when it becomes today. The fundamental use of oppositions, something one learns early on in any good creative writing class or even in a good illustration course lesson on visual metaphor is assumed to be the end rather than the beginning of a much deeper and richer formal language. At best this kind of work would not belong in the visual category at all but rather in the world of literature or publishing. It comes from a modern poetic tradition with lots of precedents. Yet I perceive that being published in a book would not help the context any more than being printed on a gallery wall. Any quote will accomplish the same kind of conceptual connections when the quote is taken out of one context and placed in another. And every good speaker has a book of quotes to help them fill their time limits. Every good writer learns early on how to take a suggestive phrase and turn it into a title for a book or an essay.

Much of this supposedly conceptual genre is deeply anti-visual in that it simply assumes the form of existing commercial screens or monitors and other media most often connected to advertising. Of course the artists often argue precisely that point… that it comments on or uses the same methods as advertising graphics and other forms of propaganda to make its statement. Generally there is little done in the way of type design or color as this would require some visual discipline. And this stripped down dependence on given templates, typefaces, letter and line spacing is called minimal to hide the lack of skill with typography.

Most of what is said in our so called word art is so generic that it usually misses the point anyway. Much of it can be compared to the 9 second sound bite that does more to obscure the truth than reveal it. (Maybe it is a comment on the current length of our attention span shortened by the kind of technology we embrace.) The result is we get more text, recorded tours and curatorial lectures to explain the work of the text itself. This is an even more interesting and convoluted twist on Wolf’s premise. An entire economy of arts writers has evolved from these circumstances. Artists often do more to build the economy by creating all these jobs then any politician ever has. Hell we’re one of the biggest industries in the country when you get right down to it. Without our creative and inventive intellectual property where would publishers, gallerists, museums, arts writers, copyright lawyers, judges who try intellectual property cases, professors of art and law and arts administrators draw down a paycheck? Not to mention the fact that everything manufactured by a human is touched at some point in its development by at least one or more artists…so we could actually include every single industry in the country if all they do is hire an artist to design their logo-- Ah, but I diverge…I often get buggy during this holiday season of consumerism. I often imagine the Christ child blessing us from the manger saying “For those who have ears to hear and those who have dollars to spend you will have me with you always in the meantime thou shalt buy, buy, buy!”

There are a few word artists who do actually blur the line between verbs and visuals usually joining their cliches with a visual joiner, signifier or qualifier. They were once called illustrators. But the modern tradition of illustration was discounted after the Second World War. The best of them have not been taken seriously for some time as artists. Even now when word art has become all the vogue the illustrator is still given short shrift. They do not often use the language of semiotics to explain their work since it actually needs little explanation. This clarity is seen as a negative as great works shouldn’t be understandable to any but the initiated (God forbid the entire economy could crumble at a moments notice). And this is an illustration of how the apologists of contemporary thinking over the last century never looked back on the history of contemporary art with the same skepticism or deep critical questioning as it has older traditions. Post modernism especially rarely holds itself accountable for its own intellectual dishonesty, folly or short sightedness. It can’t, or rather isn’t allowed because each generation of artists disavows the work of the artists of the previous generation en toto. It is one of the tenets of postmodernism that it keeps no tradition. The whole precept of modern and now so called post modern thinking has to do with the destruction/deconstruction of tradition and the idea of the new. As soon as the new appears on the scene it is cannibalized by the next generation who never even seems to realize it was given to them in the first place by their predecessors. This allows for an avant garde that will not admit that it has an asshole simply because it has never turned around to see it.

This sheds light on the anomaly that we face today. If an artist doesn’t have a sufficient amount of verbiage accompanying his/her work whether it IS the work itself or just on the wall explaining the work on the wall next to it then the general public seems to assume (or has been taught to assume) that it can’t be all that deep. If someone with higher authority from the art gods isn’t there to explain it to them then they don’t get it. I’ve mentioned many times the dynamic in this country for the audience to never venture their own interpretation of a work but to always consult the “wall”…that is to ask the artist or the gallerist or curator what it means. Usually the answer is “Oh”. In Europe and South America the opposite is often true. First the viewer will tell you what they think the work is about then if you the artist don’t agree or want to add to the discussion you can. It certainly leads to more interesting discussions as it is very hard to take “oh” any further.

Younger artists simply are the result of their surroundings and make the leap that “if words are what gets you noticed then that is what we’ll do.” they do not think critically about it as a form unto itself or how to pursue it as a visual or verbal language at any deep level in the beginning of their explorations. Looking back to history whether for a basis or as a criticism is done at the shallowest of levels. They simply practice what is touted and accepted as important and significant. Touted in University art departments who want to be perceived as the most up to date, contemporary and scholarly. Because they have the reputation of a University to support they create reams of paper to follow any visual premise as in a doctoral dissertation. The same model that is used for a scientific treatise is used as a template for a body of art work. This alone is often misguided and has added to the idea that the uneducated couldn‘t possibly understand artistic and visual works. The very idea that visual art is its own language (and our first language long before we learn to speak and spell) seems to escape them. This follow the leader mentality assures that little original thinking will occur and guarantees an audience who has no idea how to read that language.

Ok, so maybe I’m being a bit of a curmudgeon these days and have come down a little hard on those who advocate word art…Word art comes from poetry you know. E.E. Cummings was doing word art in the 20’s. There have been word artists around since before the middle ages and the days of manuscript illumination! The ancient Egyptians predated word art for that matter as heiroglyphs.

I met a very talented poet in NY who specializes in this sort of thing. In fact I would argue that ‘Word Art’ is more appropriately a form of poetry than visual art anyway. We had some very interesting discussions about how word art developed, who is doing it these days in poetry departments and painting departments…who is good and who is bad at it. Word play, contextual positioning, reversals, moot and free floating metaphor, arranged spacing, up and down alignments within a text or verse, alliteration, rhyme, innuendo, these are all games that writers have used for centuries. The fact is I love words. I love the art of putting words together to say something beautiful, something instructive, something silly or funny, something to make you laugh or cry, something to make you think about something bigger than yourself. Word art is a legitimate formal idea and can communicate deep ideas about how we communicate, how we create with both linear and lateral thinking and can be quite beautiful and profound. It can also be a complete waste of time and energy when handled by someone without talent, sensitivity or intelligence who has nothing important to talk about. So just because the writing is on the wall doesn’t mean its worth reading.

I think what I’m really trying to get at is that a few sly fools who ran out of “new” ideas a number of years back began to suggest that because they couldn’t think of anything new to paint somehow painting must be dead. They had their own agenda-- that is to make themselves famous. That isn’t all that bad an ambition in itself. Any artist who doesn’t want people to see their work and give them some credit for it is probably faking humility to some extent. But some time back I got a bit tired of hearing that painting had nothing of importance to say. Visuals are an a priori language. We couldn’t leave it behind if we wanted to. It is the way the brain functions long before we sound out words in our heads. We humans still dream dreams because that is how we think. Then and only then do we put those dreams into words.

(Credits: The Spider image that begins and ends this blog is by Gustave Dore [public domain], the word art samples “Tomorrow never comes“ and “New Paradigms” are mine done in about 20 minutes worth of goofing off), the image with the words that say “Can you say it without words“ is called “Blind Angel“ and is also mine. Blind Angel can be seen in its entirety on my site at:
absolutearts.com/walterking.
The illuminated manuscript with gospel overlaying Christ is from the middle ages and also public domain. )

Replies: 26 Comments

on Saturday, December 31st, walt said

Dianne,

I'm not a big fan of Jenny Holzer's work. Wasn't terribly excited by the 80's in general. I have a problem with a lot of conceptual art which tries to manipulate reality conceptually without dealing with the plastic quality of the reality itself. It becomes a curiosity to me, but not unlike any curiosity that attracts my attention in the visible world which then becomes grist for my own art. The fleeting moment or time span in which certain conceptual work finds much of its ground may not be understood by even the next generation let alone those of a hundred to a thousand years from now. To make it worse to use a fleeting construct to make a fleeting comment sounds like an illustration for the old arguement about the greatest artist who ever lived who was so poor that he had no paints or brushes so he dips his finger in the free water he gets at a cafe in NY, draws his idea on a napkin then proceeds to die. The question was does this mean his great work which has disappeared was any less the great? I remember this being the primary argument for conceptual work being valid back in the 60's. I was excited by such a Berklian argument then. Today my simple answer is "we'll never know?"

I did find a piece in which Holzer tries to combine plastic (hand manipulated imagery and form) with her truisms. Here is the link.

http://www.frac-bourgogne.org/scripts/album.php?mode=data&id_lang=2&id_artiste=33#

It is the classic illustration of Wolf's arguement with several small painted heads on a wall with a body of text below. As I suspected her ability to draw seems rather weak. It is good that she separates herself from the making of plastic art altogether as it doesn't work well in combination with her truisms in my opinion. She's definitely not a painter. The combination of form and content is always part of the magic of art making. Conceptual art is a completely different form and is less visual than verbal and intellectual. More like written poetry than painting. Again, I don't see Holzer's truisms as enduring as their physicality is not her own in most cases. Its fleeting quality combined with the fact that the marquis and common signage is also timely-- temporally limited. Stolen truisms on borrowed signage.

In some cases, like in the case of a lot of contextually conceptual work a good photograph takes it out of the realm of pure conceptual work into the realm of good photography...that is if they hire a good photographer (or videographer) to document the work.
ah, but then doesn't it become a collaboration? And at that point how much is attributed to Jenny and how much to the photographer or graphic designer who designed the ad for the gallery in the art magazine?

But the biggest problem of all is that I never felt Holzer had much of importance to get across with her truisms. That for me is the biggest issue I have with her work. They just seemed like such sophomoric comments.

At best conceptual art has had a huge hand in questioning the concepts of art that we have come to hold. At worst it has not established a new and functional set of criteria coupled with the fact that its context is so temporal--so easily misunderstood in the very near future.

on Friday, December 30th, dianne bowen said

Hey andrew,

I have to disagree with your comment about Jenny Holzer's work. (and appologize I think I spelled her name wrong earlier, my spelling is horrible).
I think she uses the words as both image, surface and message.

on Friday, December 30th, Dianne Bowen said

I've always been interested in the mixing of text into paintings. I recently went to an opening in Soho 2020 Gallery in Chelsea which was a combination of art and poetry. One piece in particular was a stack of cards on handmade paper tied with a silken taffeta sort of ribbon. 1,000 poems for you. It waa by a poet who was reading that night. The piece was successful for me because it had interest as a visual piece and kept it's poetic importance. the language worked with the image. The "Jesus" piece would also be a perfect example. Not everyone has the ability to use text. What do you think of Jenny Holtzer's text piece's?

on Wednesday, December 21st, walt said

I love poetry artfully carved to capture a moment, a flicker of movement, a fleeting thought blink of an eye, a look back over shoulder at the empty space as God disapears around the corner...when the veil falls back into place...

God loves lunatics and drunks.

on Wednesday, December 21st, dianne said

Word - Art,
The topic made me think of this poem.

Charles Bukowski - An Almost Made Up Poem

I see you drinking at a fountain with tiny
blue hands, no, your hands are not tiny
they are small, and the fountain is in France
where you wrote me that last letter and
I answered and never heard from you again.
you used to write insane poems about
ANGELS AND GOD, all in upper case, and you
knew famous artists and most of them
were your lovers, and I wrote back, it’ all right,
go ahead, enter their lives, I’ not jealous
because we’ never met. we got close once in
New Orleans, one half block, but never met, never
touched. so you went with the famous and wrote
about the famous, and, of course, what you found out
is that the famous are worried about
their fame –– not the beautiful young girl in bed
with them, who gives them that, and then awakens
in the morning to write upper case poems about
ANGELS AND GOD. we know God is dead, they’ told
us, but listening to you I wasn’ sure. maybe
it was the upper case. you were one of the
best female poets and I told the publishers,
editors, “ her, print her, she’ mad but she’
magic. there’ no lie in her fire.” I loved you
like a man loves a woman he never touches, only
writes to, keeps little photographs of. I would have
loved you more if I had sat in a small room rolling a
cigarette and listened to you piss in the bathroom,
but that didn’ happen. your letters got sadder.
your lovers betrayed you. kid, I wrote back, all
lovers betray. it didn’ help. you said
you had a crying bench and it was by a bridge and
the bridge was over a river and you sat on the crying
bench every night and wept for the lovers who had
hurt and forgotten you. I wrote back but never
heard again. a friend wrote me of your suicide
3 or 4 months after it happened. if I had met you
I would probably have been unfair to you or you
to me. it was best like this.

on Wednesday, December 21st, nemo said

Just having fun with your chosen adage.

on Monday, December 19th, walt said

Nemo,

The choir supports the preacher, the chorus speaks for the rest of us in Greek tragedy... In fact what you said is not distinctly different from what has been said many times by a number of people in these blogs and on the forum. Yes we all stand on the shoulders of giants...I have stated numerous times that knowing what your sources are and where they came from is important. I've also stated many times that talent and skill are different things and that being creative is the most important aspect of all. In essence I liked your funnel analogy. We are all inductive first before any deductive or reductive processes ensue. But if all we are is inductive, deductive or reductive then we haven't added much. Right? That's nothing more than straight line logic. "You're not thinking, you're merely being logical" is what Einstein said. So to add that creative turn, twist, inclusion, insight is the real deal. Isn't this what you were getting at when you said...

"Ah, alas Walter, does anyone ever really make their own art? Consider the funnel as a rudimentary model with the small end being the artist's hand. Perhaps picture the large end of that funnel as a reception dish, like a satellite dish. Wherever that dish is pointed is the modus for the operandi. Shall I say inspiration might be that wide mouth basin of the funnel. The trick in being good and original is in having innate filters between those two ends. These innate filters are most likely given as in creation versus learnt. It is the hand that benefits from acquired skill.

Choosing what one allows into their "dish" is key. Being aware of the influences and choosing wisely is an element of filtering. Not knowing where elements that encompass your art work come from... hmmm... well that may be number n of a large flock."

So when I said you were preaching to the choir and that I agreed with you, well I'm confused by your seemingly insulting response.

on Monday, December 19th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said

When Ulysses was leaving the island of the Cyclops, that creature screamed at him, 'Who are you?' and Ulysses said, 'Nemo', which in Greek means 'nobody'. Ulysses spoke in poetry. So this is the role you've chosen to play in life. Let's hope you only know you're playing. Walt, it appears you know Phil/Nemo, eh? Ex student? Manic depressive?

on Monday, December 19th, nemo said

If the choir is the majority then elected officials require less then 1/10th of the popular vote. How can you state the choir is the majority other than for the simple reason that teachers can't stand being wrong? 100+ in the pews and maybe 10 in the choir.

on Monday, December 19th, walt said

Nemo, the choir is the majority.

on Sunday, December 18th, Neeemooo said

Trepid souls lean towards a fruit filled iced painting, while teaching the rum runs the virtues of decadent vilmilitude.

Following too closely to the rigid norms of the scrapeing fingernail classics, Virgil grasped the newspaper in his hands and exclaimed himself the new editor of toiletries.

What was that clear liquid that tasted as a new fresh orange sweating it's first few minutes from being torn so delicately from the mother lode vine.

Silver is the color of of of

A trance set in as the the the

Tearing off the layers of thin plastic that wrapped the hideous but beautiful, sullen but gleeful, sparkling new little red wagon, a tear fell into the chartruese that took so very long to mix.

Painting Is

on Sunday, December 18th, nemo said

jus wondrin...

If one preaches to the choir are they backwords? The choir is usually behind the preacher so to preach to the choir one would have their back turned to the majority. Excuse me, but I am surely not a backwords person. Pick another adage.

on Sunday, December 18th, Margaret said

Sometimes, not always but sometimes, I use words, script-like and subtle in an area of a painting or weaving in and out of the forms as a compositional element. I do not think of it as an either/or thing, words versus imagery or words defining content or imagery. They are an element of the design. I like their look. Occasionally the words make sense.

on Sunday, December 18th, walt said

James, I went to the site you mentioned and will leave it up to someone else to discuss the work there.

Nemo, now you're preaching to the choir. I agree completely. I always have. And on the one hand we should push ourselves for something deep, something beautiful, something profound while at the same time we can't stop someone else from making the art they like no matter how immature, shallow or absurd we may think it is.

Hyacinthe, exactly my response to being asked to teach mainlined students with severe handicaps...that is that someone with a special interest and education in the challenge should be involved.

Brad, primarily I don't disagree with you. While I began by berating word art I ended by suggesting that I was simply venting about any art that is less than all it could be. (That includes my own work by the way...) That words, being primarily linear do tend to narrow and direct to specific points, it can also become layered and open up larger ideas and possibilites. So I think I only disagree with you in that while most of it does tend to direct into a more shallow and narrow discourse,which by the way is not always a bad thing depending on the talent of the one directing, it can also be a deep and wide sea. All I'm ever really saying in my blogs is that we can call each other to something even better than what we're doing if we discuss these things. We may not appreciate someone personally dissing our work directly all the time but the general discussion is something we can all participate in and get something from.

on Sunday, December 18th, seventy_four@hotmail.com">James Witkin said

Check out the work of someone who really does put images and text into a coherent artwork! http://www.leokogan.com

on Sunday, December 18th, Brad Michael Moore said

Walt,
I'll leave the blind out of my response.
Nice piece...
Interesting train of thinking and observation. Your words follow one another at a good pace and grow to encapsulate your visions of this often perplexing issue - what I call, “oralized art...” Even where words represent new meanings – they narrow our impression when attached or integrated into visual art’s fabric – 2 or 3 dimensionally. I’ve always thought of language used in representational art as a bit bastardizing. Still, I’ve done it a bit myself - considering nothing’s original, and that we’re all problem-solving the questions before us. Sound bits, I can handle with art’s presentation - adding the written word turns art into a personal religion and narrows your audience.

on Saturday, December 17th, Nemo said

Ah, alas Walter, does anyone ever really make their own art? Consider the funnel as a rudimentary model with the small end being the artist's hand. Perhaps picture the large end of that funnel as a reception dish, like a satellite dish. Wherever that dish is pointed is the modus for the operandi. Shall I say inspiration might be that wide mouth basin of the funnel. The trick in being good and original is in having innate filters between those two ends. These innate filters are most likely given as in creation versus learnt. It is the hand that benefits from acquired skill.

Choosing what one allows into their "dish" is key. Being aware of the influences and choosing wisely is an element of filtering. Not knowing where elements that encompass your art work come from... hmmm... well that may be number n of a large flock. Ah who cares. Everybody paint and be happy!

on Saturday, December 17th, Hyacinthe Baron said

For many years I was Artist in Residence at the San Diego Institute for the Blind and for Braille Institute here in Palm Springs as well.

You know my work is quite well documented in Seeking the Silent Stranger, Drawing Your Way into the Deeper Self written with a Board Certified Internist who validates all my experiments teaching the blind, quite successfuly, to draw.

I began to work with them to prove certain theories of mine prior to publishng the above book and CREATIVITY, Making Your Marktm and DRAWING by Making Your Marktm.

I believe the gift of insight comes from within and what is needed is a method to bring it out. Drawing is not only a representation of what is seen it is expressing what is seen within. Based on touch plus this kind of visualization a blind person can be taught to see.
A case in point described in my books is a young man blnd from age 3 with very little memory of what a face looked like, and yet he was haunted by a face that kept floating across what he described the TV screen in his mind.

He was able to draw what he was seeing and drew a portrait that now hangs in the lobby of the building and for which He was offered $900. The beauty of the face leaves one with the chills.
The details of how this type of drawing is accomplished are in my books. Suffice it to say the success of the experiments proved my theories and even went further.

As for the LOVE sculpture it is prominently featured in front of a modern tower, can't remember which office building on a street in the 50's on the East side between 6th and 7th Avenues.

Andrew sorry to hear about the diabetes. Hope you have it under control.

on Saturday, December 17th, walt said

Andrew and Jose, you know I felt as if we were getting off point to some extent but now that we've gone this far maybe the thing that bothers me so much about word art is that it is outside the realm of what I do as a painter. So, if we're discussing things outside that realm then the idea of blind art is appropriate. These really are something 'other' than purely visual. And Andrew, if this subject has suggested something positive such as the exhibition (in the dark) that you mentioned then it is a good thing, although I'm not sure I can take any credit for serendipity/synchronicity.

on Saturday, December 17th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said

Sculpture and the blind have a whole different relationship, in that their tactile ability is still present, and perhaps even amplified. Thinking about this gave me an idea for a show, for the blind, and for the sighted as well; exhibit sculpture in a completely darkened exhibition space. The theme is more than a passing one for me...it may be the last part of my career since I'm a diabetic, and blindness is one of the potential results of diabetes. I don't see it as just a door closing, but rather another one opening since it's an area I wouldn't explore were it not for it being an arena I may have to work within. Painting is, however, another thing, and I appreciate the difficulty you'd have trying to teach a sightless person how to use color and light. Perhaps texture. One on one would be the only way, unless a group of sighted students wanted to try just texture with a blind 'seer'. It's tangential to most art education but very intriguing anyway.

on Saturday, December 17th, walt said

Jose, no I hadn't considered the thought of a blind artist making visual art. Forgive me if I'm not being terribly politically correct at this point. It has always seemed a contraction in terms. Frankly I've never seen any blind art so I don't know if there are any really good blind artists out there or not. Certainly there are many blind writers and musicians--areas where auditory senses are dominant and that makes sense to me. I know some people claim to be able to feel color temprature. I don't sense it that way. I see it but don't feel it in my finger tips. I'm not saying others don't. I'm just not sensative to it. And I feel that would cause me not to be able to appreciate it visually if it was done from a tactile process. Seems to me only those with the tactile ability to feel the color could really appreciate it and that would properly make the work something other than visual. Sorry if I seem too hooked on categories...but there is in my mind a certain amount of differentiating one must do from a critical point of view.

We did have a near miss with a potential blind student who was considering coming to our college at one point. I really would have been at a loss as to how to deal with it.

I've had deaf and dumb students over the years. In some classes it wasn't so hard to deal with. You lecture, the sign interpreter translates the language to the student who also takes notes and then goes off to do the homework. Critiques were often done with writing on a note pad handed back and forth between myself and the student. One of these students was from another country and did not read English. Signing was done in the international sign language. It made critiques all that much harder- nearly impossible. Both of us would walk away frustrated at the end of every class. The student made very little progress and I felt like a complete failure.

The hardest class to teach these students was drawing. In my drawing classes I lecture as the students draw directing and reminding them to measure, how to measure, how to build proportion, talking about anatomy that we'd covered in previous assignments to watch for, pointing out aspects of the pose from different parts of the room with problems the students of that view might have to solve, forshortening, value and shadows, planer form, etc.. It was nearly impossible for the speech and hearing challenged students to make any progress in that class. Especially the one from outside the U.S.. I would have to change everything about the way I teach for just one student. That wouldn't be fair to me or the rest of the class to slow them down while I spent so much time with just one. And of course I do this both out of love and for a living and making the kind of changes that would have been needed would have taken an awful lot of my time for which I would not have been paid any extra.

While I'm for the Disabililty Act(as defined in U.S.law) there is an aspect that is
non-productive as far as I'm concerned. There needs to be some flexability for individual cases. Just mainstreaming everyone from my experience isn't always the best solution. Some of these students needed far more one on one than I could give within the circumstances of the kinds of classes I was teaching. I still believe that there should be some consideration for specialists who focus on helping these students get up to speed before or while mainstreaming them completely. Out of about 4 of the challenged students I had (and of course they had other teachers as well) has gone on to do fairly well as a professional designer where she competes equally with other unfettered artists. I have tons of respect for her courage and persistance. I usually only hear from the more successful students after graduation--with a few exceptions.

Andrew, yes, titles are another connection that use words as an aspct of the art. And of course the use of titles goes way back. Sometimes artists put the title in the piece. The words as you state lend a hint, a clue or cue to the direction of the concept the artist wants us to move in.

Jenny Holzer's work always seemed immature to me. Sophomoric as you say. I could never get Holzer's big picture...never quite got the reason so much was being made of her. It just never seemed to work on the wall of a museum or gallery...I felt her work was more political than artistic. And while I too do political images I still believe they should rise above pure propaganda to something more artistic if I'm gonna call it art. Her headlines in the style of tabloid journalism, almost seemed to work when I saw her work published in magazines which seemed a proper context. But often times because of the tabloid headline style her statements all too often seemed to cancel themselves out.

I suppose the fact that I once worked in the graphic design field where titles, headlines and text were always considered carefully from a visual stand point is why I have such dower thoughts about most of the word art I've seen. There is a very refined art to making words work visually (not that my little experiments on this blog are particularly good examples.) A good title or headline not only identifies the work and its subject but should also open up potential about what the piece is about and where it might take the reader. Even there, I mean talking about headlines, I see a lot these days that isn't done very well or is misrepresenting the content of the piece. I especially notice this in journalism.

on Saturday, December 17th, jose freitas cruz said

I am pressed for time and can’t formulate all the thoughts this new blog of yours has brought to the surface, Walt. Though I am not so sure of the validity of those last couple of sentences [where would that leave the blind? I have come across visually-impaired and even blind artists with interesting visions – though I surmise you refer exclusively to the impressions non-visually-impaired-artists receive], for the most part I agree with what you say here. For the non-visually-impaired visual impressions stand up there at the top as the prime source of dreams and inspiration that ultimately leads to concrete manifestations we sometimes call art. Light, not words, is our prime resource and, I believe, the one we should concentrate on working upon and delivering for further consideration and digestion. Of course words affect how we perceive the reality light lights up for us but it’s the poet’s and the essayist’s resource (the Mexican Nobel laureate Octavio Paz is one of my favourites). I can see the benefits of using word/text within a painting to trigger an association (as you have done in Blind Angel), or in sculpture or installation, but I am baffled when the word or the text itself is elevated to the statute of art.

on Saturday, December 17th, walt said

Hey Nemo! You make your art I'll make mine.

on Saturday, December 17th, emo said

A topic worthy of comment.

on Friday, December 16th, emo said

If you quit pasting stuff to your canvass' you wouldn't have time to write these long winded pop essays. I only skimmed it.

on Friday, December 16th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said

If I say, Jenny Holzer comes to mind, then a lot of you will respond and say, yeah, and so does...and so forth. There are many word artists. Yeah. Ugly Deaf Face. But of them all, who would you say was the best? And will they remain the best for centuries?
I recently used word art on a piece of mine, "Does This Not Make Sense", to make a visual piece into a verbal riddle. The title is verbal, the answer is verbal, the images from which you get the answer are visual. In classical art, certain elements composed of written words often are present, sometimes hidden on seemingly haphazardly placed objects. In these situations, because one doesn't normally find much writing in a classical painting, they call attention to themselves, and take on a disproportionately larger significance. ('Rest During the Flight Into Egypt', Caravaggio, late 1500's)
It is the frugal use of these word images, and their minimal presence on the canvass that give them power. No one can tell me that Jenny Holzer is an evolution to a higher plane than the one Caravaggio was on. Her work, and that of others like her, represents the huge fall from magnificence that is applauded by sophomores everywhere.