Comments on: Surface Tension: Contemporary Quilt Art

By: wendy feldberg

wendy feldberg — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:22:01 +0000

Indeed, this is a great discussion. Thank you for the well thought-out responses.
I would like to wade in about the relationship between the Artist Statement and the notion of the work being allowed to “speak for itself”. Robert Shaw, art quilt guru, suggests that it is good if artist try to help both the the viewer and the curator understand the work from the artist’s point of view, and that an A.S. should provide some guidance. I have come to believe that he is right. Not exactly in the vein of “to understand all is to forgive all” but in order to situate the work’s origin in the artist’s own personal world and art sub-culture. To understand and be understood one should share a common language and in this sense the work that “speaks for itself” needs cultural interpretation sometimes. Enter the sensitive and knowledgeable curator and reviewer, not to mention viewers and peers.

As a viewer (and an artist), I hope for a curator and reviewer to approach art work first from an understanding of what the artist is trying to achieve or convey -even to take appreciation and interpretation futher than the artist herself might have understood or dared…I expect that the work displayed will not be to everyone’s taste and that the artist might have to school tendencies to hypersensitivity and fears of rejection… I think it is fair to look for evidence from reviewers et al that efforts have been made to understand the work displayed and so to establish a reliable context for their expression of taste. As a result of good curating, one hopes “unready” work would escape both display and review.

2 cents from Wendy (preparing for a show and getting anxious…)

By: alison schwabe

alison schwabe — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:19:29 +0000

Caron – I don’t agree that art issupposed to challenge us – rather I feel it should speak to us, engage us in some way, but challenge, not necessarily. I am just as happy to find a piece of art which I find speaks to me in a way that I feel delight, or perhaps some kind of intrigue or insight, pause for contemplation perhaps, I own at least one piece that calms me whenever I look at it – challenge does not necessarily have a role in any of the things I look for in “art” And as for composition, I think you are underrating the importance of good composition to the overall impact of a successful piece, claiming it desplays emotional state doesn’t change a bad into an aceptable composition. The elements of design are the tools by which the artist creates and speaks to his audience – if you aren’t speaking a common language communication is absent or confusing at least. The elements of design are totally separate from skill in workmanship or technical alacrity.

Lisa – I’m with you – my first look at the installation caused me to think what a shame they were so crowded together. I have to doubt that seeing them in flexh would have corrected or changed that feeling. Rayna may indeed claim the shot didn’t do justice to the quilts pictured, but that is quite a different issue from the spacing one.

And finally, we come to one of my pet peeves – the artist statement. I think a successful artwork speaks to a viewer whether or not there is an artist statement to help the viewer know more about what was on the artist’s mind at the time of creation. Same goes with the average floor talk by a curator. A succesful work does not need a statement about its symbolism OR about how the artist made it, designed it and so on. Catalogues, IMHO, can serve the artist well with some relevanrt bio and general info about a body of work, but please, let the work speak for itself. And, then I think as Lisa mentions, we will see that maybe up to 90% of art (quiltart included) is less than art – perhaps crap is a bit harsh, but “Nice Decoration” comes to mind. And like Lisa I have produced a good percentage myself down the years.

Thanks to Rayna for a thought porvoking review. And thanks to Sandra for what seems to be a fairly comprehensive survey exhibition. I wish I had been able to see it, but at least though this site I can sample some of the effect.

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:07:22 +0000

Wow. This was not only a helpful review which raised issues I need to address in my own work, but the comments have been very informative as well. For now all I can contribute is my thanks to all concerned. I’m working towards a group exhibition of 5 diverse textile artists next year, and will continue to read everything posted here – it’s an education.

By: lisacall

lisacall — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:11:50 +0000

Caron, I've been pondering your comment for a while now thinking about how to respond. I'm not really sure what you are asking. Are you saying that you want to make art but don't see why you should put in the effort to make it quality art? Or that you are making art that is purposefully trying to challenge our expectations for what art can be? Or something else. One thing that I think about in terms of my art is Sturgeon's Law (wikipedia article here), which states ninety percent of everything is crud. If you believe this might be true then how this applies to art is an interesting thing to think about. I certainly know I've made my share of art to fit into that 90%. Another thought on the subject (and of receiving poor reviews in general) is an article on the blog Art & Perception here. It talks about 4 pitfalls that can lead one astray when making art. Here is a snippet from the article: Blaming the Audience – Finally, when one of our works of art fails, the temptation is to blame the audience. They aren’t perceptive enough, they aren’t smart enough, they don’t have the right education, or perhaps they simply aren’t sensitive enough to respond correctly to your work (which you feel is absolutely superlative in every respect). If only we had the RIGHT audience, we assure ourselves, our work would get the recognition and acclaim it (and we) deserves.

By: Caron

Caron — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:24:34 +0000

As an artist I have created pieces which could be similarlily reviewed to Toni DiSiano’s. I am usaully aware of compositional errors, as they are often pointed out to us by cri t groups and friends. Sometimes I make the necessary corrections, but, sometimes, that error was added by my sub-conscious, and perfectly recflects a complex emotional state I have otherwise been unable to express. Those errors, as glaring as they may be to others, stay. Come whatever critiques may bring, I know my art is a reflection of my flawed existence. Sometimes I can make it look prettier than it is, and sometimes I don’t want to.

Why do we assume as viewers of art the pieces placed before us should all be well composed and always “pleasing”? Isn’t art supposed to challenge us?

By: Sharon R

Sharon R — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:26:51 +0000

Since Rayna posted the “turn a quarter” concept for Toni DeSiano’s piece, I had to respond. Personally, this is one of my favorite pieces, at least as photographed. I like the concept of finding a surprise in the screenprinted images only when closer to the quilt. And I feel turning the quilt 90 degrees makes it seem like there’s a living room couch on carpet and 3 pics on the wall — not nearly as interesting an image for me as the current positioning.

By: elizabethpoole

elizabethpoole — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:47:49 +0000

We’re been looking at other reviews in other publications, and they don’t discuss, in main, “suppose this were less blue?” “how about we elongate it twice as much vertically?” “let’s rotate it 90 degrees”.

It’s a valid crit group point, yes. That’s what crit groups do.

What reviews do is talk about what is, rather than what might have been. Rayna’s review doesn’t need to crit-group the pieces. It needs to discuss them as is, and it does that quite ably.

By: Rayna

Rayna — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:45:23 +0000

Susie — when the editors of this site edited my review, one of the things they left out was my suggestion that if you rotate Toni DeSiano’s piece 90 degrees to the right (a quarter turn) so that what is on the right is then on the bottom, it becomes a different piece. The large dark part anchors the piece and the three blue squares become a focal point. In fact, this abstract piece communicates a whole ‘nother story — at least to THIS viewer.

I am sorry that this was omitted from the review; it is very much what we do in our crit group when something one of us has is just not quite THERE. And very often, when you rotate a piece, the composition changes and it emerges as a much stronger piece.
Try it yourself by rotating your computer screen, if you can. I’d be interested in what you think.

By: Omega

Omega — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:08:12 +0000

I found this to be an excellent review, making me look more at the individual illustrations, and making me wish fervently that I could see the show itself. It is illuminating to read so clearly what the exhibition’s intention is, and whether the reveiwer believed the outcome to be successful. I believe that more analytical reviews of exhibitions as well as of individual works are necessary for us all to understand what is involved in the design and purpose – philosophy of both areas.

Comments make us look closer to see if we agree or not, and often to examine areas which we let slide for whatever reason. When we offer our work for exhibition we are implicitly courting feedback, and I have found that it is the negative reactions which often lead to more self-examination and growth in my work. This is probably the case because the negative comments tend to have more analysis attached than the positive ones.

I found the comments in this review to be considered and constructive, and it would be most interesting to read what the artists themselves have to say in reply. It is a rare treat to be able to read the replies of curators and exhibitors to reviews, and I hope that this grows on this site.

By: Susie Monday

Susie Monday — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:20:48 +0000

Not to beat the same drum too loudly, I agree with Lisa’s comments. One of the most frustrating things for me as a quilt artist has been the oversensitivity some people have about criticism. We all need to get clear that words about our work as just that, subjective opiinions, hopefully from an informed, educated, experienced perspective that does give that subjectivity standing in the world of art. (And Rayna certainly meets those criteria). It is not “mean” to state that something doesn’t work. The artist can disagree, others can disagree. Or agree.

For example, with the piece by Toni Disiano, I also feel that the composition of this particular piece calls for larger square, or perhaps a different intensity or value of color. It may be that the artist is working with the idea/the problem of emphasis with a small detail to balance a large space — that is a valid design problem. But, I agree with Rayna, as least in as far as I can tell in the photo provided, that the compositional problem was not solved — posed, yes, solved, no.

This does not mean that the artist is a bad artist, a bad person or an unskilled craftswoman. Our work is not us. We are not our work. We are striving to create work that is powerful, communicative and visually interesting. Criticism that deals with elements of design, with technical issues, with communication blips, even with tone misteps — all are valid. And it takes courage to speak out as a reviewer for all to read those opiniions.

I think the comments about this also has to do with women wanting to support one another emotionally, a goal that is sometimes at odds with with truthtelling. I try when I receive a critique, to remember that the only way my work will grow and improve is to learn from my shortcomings. I appreciate criticism, even if I don’t agree with it, but especially when I do. And as hard as it is, I am learning to separate my feelings from my wisdom in this area.