art-speak, nature and aesthetics - LORNE BIENNALE

art-speak, nature and aesthetics - LORNE BIENNALE

musings by Doug Williams

“Nature and aesthetics have long had a special relationship in the creation of sculpture in the landscape.”

I would go further and say that sculptural elements in the natural world are what define man-made sculpture, that the creation of the latter could not exist without the former.

By “seeking to replicate ... the living presence of a cry for environmental awareness and responsibility” these sculptors are taking on a very great task indeed.

Are they up to that task? It’s hard to say really since to evaluate their success will be only be possible by empirical assessment from a long term point of view, by examining the works through the inverted lens of a telescope (if that metaphor could be realised in fact).

But as for the individual works themselves there is much to be appreciated and much to learn.

Do they reflect the theme Nature+Humanity+Art ?  Well as near as I can say that in the main they mostly attain to this prerequisite. Each artist does so in an individual manner:  eg. site 25 : The Observers by Greg Johns. I like this sculpture. I like it for what it is as much as for what the artist says it is. That is the brilliant thing about certain pieces – I am able to say “I get it.” It’s a simple and primal understanding that a sculpture can convey to me. Doesn’t need explaining, doesn’t require justification.

I do feel it important that the artist forgo describing their work in too much detail. If the purpose or the meaning and message are spelled out for the viewer it leaves them no room to move and makes it less likely for a subjective take to be made. If the artist tells us what s/he is trying to achieve by exhibiting a work that is different from telling us what the work may say to us. There is no reveal and no opportunity for us to independently arrive at the spot the artist intends we reach if the definition is provided in overly descriptive, analytical terms.

And paradoxically often the write-up provided is couched in art-speak. I’m not a fan of art-speak. As jo Vonda said: "The result is to make art appreciation elitist. The concocted language is tortuous in its attempt to say something original and clever but so often is just incomprehensible. Some of it is sibling to gibberish, a lot of it is first cousin to pomposity". 
When Shoso Shimbu hopes that a "nuanced work being a conduit to change" it shows that art-speak can cross cultures as well as language. Why have the courage to put your art out there in the open for all the world to see and enjoy but then keep the viewer at arm’s length (or further) by shrouding it with words which betray the implicit invitation to engage in an unequivocal way? 

The KISS principle applies. There should be no implied barrier between the viewer and any work of art. Although he spoke about sculpture in general terms by declaring "I invent nothing, I re-discover”, I cannot for the life of me imagine Rodin befuddling people with a wordy blurb about The Thinker. On the other hand Henry Moore said, "To know one thing, you must know the opposite". This Zen-like remark, while obscure, does not refer to one particular piece of work and so cannot be construed as distancing the viewer from the artwork as occurs with the use of art-speak. Of course these two sculptors were pre-post- modernism so the prevailing memes were very different to those of today.

Nevertheless, despite the profusion and tenacity of art-speak a number of the works look extremely interesting. This comment is based on what has been made available in the catalogue which is not necessarily what will be on display but what I can see does have me eager with anticipation.

The Lorne Independent, March 2018