Artist's statements

I’m trying to read “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, as recommended for the Context of Practice course.

Note the “trying”.

I’m struggling to understand its relevance to the work I produce myself.

As I said in my previous blog, I am leery of deliberately trying to steer observers’ thoughts by incorporating "signs" in my work; I suspect there’s a fine dividing line between looking crass and being too subtle to get noticed.

Maybe other people can do this successfully and I’m not sophisticated enough?

 I was thinking this today while I was admiring a collection of three blown glass objects, made by Adam Johns,  in one of the college showcases.

Adam's Artist's Statement says:

As a studio glass designer and maker I enjoy the constant challenge that glassblowing presents.  In this project I have focussed on the specific characteristics of certain  grotesque insects and amphibians and their associated warning colours. 

I wanted to explore the emotions experienced by the viewer using certain colour combinations, shapes and textures which I hope bring into question our  perception of small insects and amphibians.  

They're presented in small collections to try and enhance the tensions which I feel exist between them.  It brings into question whether the pieces are interacting with or repelling each other. 

Impressive! 

I don't know whether I'd dare ask Adam what came first - making the pieces or coming up with the concept behind the artist's statement.

If it was me, I  can imagine making a bunch of nice looking objects, looking for  a “common denominator” that would justify calling them  a collection and then writing a statement to steer observers into making the same connection.

 I suspect this sort of thing goes on quite a bit.  When students' work is displayed for assessment some of the sketch-books are beautiful, so beautiful that they might have been created once the actual work of art had been completed.

I'm left with a couple of questions:

• Are artist's statements  a bit of a cop-out in that they become part and parcel of the work of art, conveying meanings that aren't otherwise obvious?   Shouldn't the work of art speak for itself?

•  Perhaps I would have found my own interpretation of Adam's work if I hadn't read his statement?