Getting something useful from "Mumbo Jumbo"

[Bill Burk]

In a recent announcement thread, a photographer's "Mumbo Jumbo" was discussed derisively.

Now I don't know why, but every time I read statements by photographers which transcend ordinary instructions, I feel "more inspired" and become hungry for more. Something usually connects within me that makes me appreciate that photographer all the more.

Wynn Bullock's name came up as a particular example. I found a quote "When I feel a rock is as much of a miracle as a man, then I feel in touch with the universe." Now that seems a pretty obvious instruction to me: Go out and feel for yourself. That is easy enough for me to do. When I'm out and I see a rock, I definitely feel something. It can be a huge miracle like "Half Dome" or a small miracle, like a landmark outcropping in a forest. It can be a rock in someone's front-yard garden covered with a patch of lichen. I haven't gotten to where I feel a response to a dusty chunk of loose gravel, but most rocks with personality draw my attention, at least for a moment.

I'd rather hear "Mumbo Jumbo" than technical talk of tonality and micro-contrast anyday.

To someone who thinks it's all nonsense, I have a western response: "You just don't get it, do you?"

[Vaughn]

To some, the word "art" is mumbo jumbo"...not to me, though.

But words, mumbo jumbo or otherwise, are tools for communication. And communication breaks down when one does not have the life experiences (or desire) to bring meaning to the words.

[frotog]

I think you've misunderstood the thread you're referring to. "Mumbo Jumbo" was a quote from A. Adams in reference to Mr. M. White's very specific penchant for mysticism when speaking about photography, not a moniker for all artists' statements pertaining to subject matter, craft or method. My contention was that this particular strain of mysticism, as exemplified by M. White and later on by P. Caponigro can be traced back to the conceit of Steiglitz' "Equivalents" in which the abstract form of the photographs not only transcends the subject matter but suggests an immediate correspondence to the artist's consciousness. By the time the 60's rolled around, this mode of description became so forced and cliched and further away from it's Symbolist roots that it was even less capable of conveying anything truly meaningful. It's perhaps needless to mention here that such hyperbolic text to photographs is no longer fashionable outside of a few noticeable examples (see..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSrXpFb7jFo)

The Bullock quote you refer to is a good example - it's precariously close to saying nothing at all because, as you say so yourself, it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

[Heroique]

When I’m out and I see a rock, I definitely feel something. It can be a huge miracle like “Half Dome” or a small miracle, like a landmark outcropping in a forest.

I discovered this boulder at the top of a high ridge of giant cedars.

Mother Nature rolled it down from Canada during the most recent ice age, then abandoned it here when she retreated.

Well, that’s what the geologists say, a scientific Mumbo Jumbo that kills to dissect.

Me, I prefer to think it’s a miracle that Sisyphus finally succeeded in his task and may now take a long-needed rest. Makes me feel in touch with the universe.

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6
Fuji Velvia-100F QuickLoad
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[jp]

It beats "the pyro wars" for sure. But being able to express what we are thinking isn't terribly manly, especially when it it's psuedo-spiritual or earthy. I say go ahead and try, if it can be expressed concisely, and don't worry what people might think.

[Kirk Gittings]

I get it Bill and mostly agree with you. I also like to talk about technique......within limits. Which is why I choose not to hang out with photographers toooooo much (in groups especially). There is only sooooo much tech talk that I can take before I go to sleep or go postal.

I was at an opening on Saturday. A friend introduced me to their uncle (who had a DSLR around his neck). My friend said "oh he is a photographer too-you two can talk about cameras". I quickly made my apologies and made a quick exit. If he had had an 8x10 around his neck I would have stayed about two minutes longer for a brief conversation.........

[Oren Grad]

If he had had an 8x10 around his neck...

Umm, that should have made for a very interesting conversation. :)

Bill: We're all wired differently. There's no need to apologize for finding inspiration wherever you find it. But others may respond to different ways of talking about what they're doing. There's no one right way.

[Bill Burk]

I think you've misunderstood the thread you're referring to.

frotog,

The Deep Thought about trees was pretty funny. Yeah they probably DO scream all the time for no good reason.

Maybe I haven't misunderstood, those are all "sacred cows," deep wells of inspiration for me. It seems you think they are cliche. It's OK with me that you take a counter position, otherwise this doesn't become much of a discussion.

Like Oren Grad says, we are all wired differently.

It took me a while to understand what Stephen Willard meant when he wrote that he considers himself to be an "expressive plein air photographer." At first I was put off. What makes that different than what I do, when I am getting out my camera on the banks of a creek, where a watercolor painter had just folded her portable easel and walked on. I never considered myself an "expressive plein air photographer" before, but maybe at that moment I was. Maybe what we consider ourself can help us elevate our work. We must consider ourselves unique in some way. For example, what I do is special, because I take a LF camera backpacking without carrying more weight than when I carried a 35mm outfit.*

I've long believed the "Mumbo Jumbo" that trees can talk. Not sure where I heard since the Internet wasn't around back then, but I recall hearing as a child that trees do scream when cut. More recently I think science showed that the communication from a tree being attacked by beetles can cause uninfected neighboring trees to secrete a barrier to beetles - potentially saving the forest.

Can I hear them? I literally don't think so. But out of respect for the possibility, I try to treat them as if they communicate, and I try to conduct myself in a way that they would most likely NOT scream. An example, friends' Walnut ranch, I did a little pruning. While I was cutting, I talked a bit to the trees and explained what I was doing. I am sure they were cussing me out as I was apologizing for their trouble.

*Dang, no mumbo jumbo. Gotta work on that.

[Bill Burk]

...what I do is special, because I take a LF camera backpacking without carrying more weight than when I carried a 35mm outfit.*

*Dang, no mumbo jumbo. Gotta work on that.

This is really stupid as a statement. Could you imagine if that's all that made me special. Guess that's going on the tombstone then...

Why not say something that might be meaningless, but says more. "I'm special because I feel a kinship with the forest and the mountains. I treat the rivers, rocks, waterfalls and trees as if they have a voice, asking me to take their portraits".

And you know, sometimes I think I hear it and it's overwhelming. I have to say STOP! I can't possibly capture you all. Then the LF comes in, and maybe I can.

[ROL]

I get it Bill and mostly agree with you. I also like to talk about technique......within limits. Which is why I choose not to hang out with photographers toooooo much (in groups especially). There is only sooooo much tech talk that I can take before I go to sleep or go postal.

I was at an opening on Saturday. A friend introduced me to their uncle (who had a DSLR around his neck). My friend said "oh he is a photographer too-you two can talk about cameras". I quickly made my apologies and made a quick exit. If he had had an 8x10 around his neck I would have stayed about two minutes longer for a brief conversation.........

That being the case, and one I entirely agree with, I would defer to you anytime if ever I find myself in such a group – and get 2 minutes extra sleep, at your expense. ;)

[Bill Burk]

I've got a "few" close friends and family photographers. Lucky for me they "get it".

Like sister's boyfriend (a film-maker) two weeks ago told me the story (I hadn't heard yet) that Star Wars is being shot on Kodak film. Now that kind of ice-breaker can keep a conversation flowing.

p.s. I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

[Ken Lee]

I'd rather hear "Mumbo Jumbo" than technical talk...

We can't have one without the other. They are complimentary and relative.

[Kirk Gittings]

Mumbo without the Jumbo? No way man :)

[Bill Burk]

I'd rather hear "Mumbo Jumbo" than technical talk...

We can't have one without the other. They are complimentary and relative.

Especially with photography. I'm starting to get it.

You need technical AND "Mumbo Jumbo" for excellent photography.

And followers of the legendary Parrot Ox need neither.

[TXFZ1]

I've got a "few" close friends and family photographers. Lucky for me they "get it".

Like sister's boyfriend (a film-maker) two weeks ago told me the story (I hadn't heard yet) that Star Wars is being shot on Kodak film. Now that kind of ice-breaker can keep a conversation flowing.

p.s. I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

NYT has an interview with the Coen bros and they talk about the film vs digital debate in the movie industry. True Grit was their last movie using film and they discuss how the cutting room is becoming an dying art. Interesting article.

David

[paulr]

Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo is excellent.

[Brian Ellis]

I was the one who started the "mumbo jumbo" discussion. Actually I first used "mumbo jumbo" to paraphrase something Ansel Adams said about Minor White, not something I was calling his ideas myself. Thereafter I put the phrase "mumbo jumbo" in quotes, hoping to show that I wasn't personally applying the term to White, Bullock, or Caponigro's theories but rather as a shorthand way of describing what I was talking about.

I think if you read my posts in that thread you'll see nothing derisive in them. I didn't criticize Bullock, White, Caponigro, or anyone who finds their ideas about photography useful. I think you and a few others have defended themselves and those photographers against criticism that was never made. As I said in my original post, if anyone finds their theories useful, that's fine.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The chasm between art and language assures each will survive as distinct expressions.

[frotog]

Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo is excellent.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been hankering for a good read as of late. This title has never been on my radar - will check it out.

[Bill Burk]

Brian Ellis,

Perhaps derisive was an unfortunate word. My overarching feeling in starting this thread wasn't to mount a defense, but to continue a discussion that wouldn't have taken place without a contrary position.

[frotog]

And your position is that overarching and grandiose generalizations that say nothing are thought provoking?

[Bill Burk]

A thought occurred to me. While the concept in question is rather simple, I feel the way the thought unfolded gave me a new perspective on my perception of past, present and future.

While contemplating the Rim Fire and its aftermath, I got the feeling that next year there will be flies. Lots of those little pesky black flies that don't hurt anything but they get in your eyes and mouth and hover all around. Low foothill mountains in California tend to have these and they are just annoying. They don't even necessarily go for food or garbage. I think there will be flies all around the vicinity of the fire.

What gave me that idea? Summer 2009 in a canyon near Big Sur I was swarmed by these little pests. When I asked the naturalists about it they explained that the wasps' nests had all burned in the fire, leaving the flies free to multiply without their natural predators.

It makes sense to keep an eye out for them next year in the canyons around Twain Harte.

Thirty or so years ago I spent a week alone at my family cabin in Holy Jim Canyon in Southern California. I was driven to near madness by these same little flies. I had no "Mumbo Jumbo" to account for them. I just thought they came with the territory.

But then there was the Indian Canyon fire of 1980... And looking back, I believe now that the fires could have caused that explosion in their population.

The point I think can be drawn from this little story - You can legitimately figure out what was going on in your mind many years ago and explain it using knowledge you have today.

[Bill Burk]

And your position is that overarching and grandiose generalizations that say nothing are thought provoking?

They have to have a ring of truth to them. I have to deal with the fact that I possess a primarily "western" mindset, yet I enjoy thoughts that come from the cosmos.

[MDR]

I can't help it but sometimes AA comes across as a bit of an intolerant A..hole, Photography needs both mumbo jumbo and technical prowness but the first sounds better and actually helps to engage the mind the latter is simple facts no thinking required. And one shouldn't forget that Photography is more a child of alchemy than modern chemistry what would photography be without it's mysticism, probably very boring. We photographers capture light we do not reproduce an object we reproduce the light reflected by an object there's some magic in that at least for me. Also Artists need to eat and BS sells better than technical informations.

[Kirk Gittings]

I had long talks with AA a few times about articles I was writing in the mid 80s and found him everything but an intolerant Ahole. Did he have strong opinions-you bet. Few successful artists I have met though do not demonstrate at least one obvious character flaw that oftentimes gets chalked up to eccentricity. I wonder sometimes which came first the flaw or the great art whether or whether success just breeds arrogance. AA to me was the most even keeled, sharing and gracious of men in my limited experience with him but maybe my experience was unusual.

[MDR]

Extremely opinionated sounds better than intolerant and since I've never met him I can only form an opinion on some things he said about other photographers that had the bad luck not to share his opinion or to prefer another form of photography. That doesn't mean that he really was an Ahole though.

[paulr]

From everything I've heard, AA was exceptionally kind, unless your name was Mortensen.

[Merg Ross]

From everything I've heard, AA was exceptionally kind, unless your name was Mortensen.

or James G. Watt.

[DennisD]

I had long talks with AA a few times about articles I was writing in the mid 80s

Hi Kirk,
Since AA wasn't well in the months before his death in April 84, I'm guessing you spoke with AA in the "early 80's" .

However, if you were conversing with him as you said, you are an even more remarkable man and photographer than those on the forum already know you to be...

In case it really was the "mid 80's", please let me know - as there are several people I'd ask you to contact on my behalf and send along a few choice words !

Kirk, this response is really to say your comments about Ansel Adams are very true.

Ansel Adams may have had a strong personality and opinions, but he was also a very generous and kind individual. True, he did not subscribe to a lot of the "mumbo jumbo".

I had the opportunity to visit AA in Carmel on several occasions. When planning a trip to California in 1974, I wrote to ask if he would be willing to look at my portfolio of work. He did not know me from Adam. He responded by postcard while on a trip to New Mexico with a very welcoming "yes" and a suggestion of dates. When I did visit, he had plenty of comments and offered many suggestions and much encouragement. What more could a young man of 25 ask for ?

Ansel was known to welcome beginners and share his wealth of knowledge quite generously... And as I recall, without a lot of pomp or ego - or "mumbo-jumbo". That's who he was.

That being said, I also have respect for those photographers who have their own way of "thinking" or "speaking" their images. The proof is in the final work (not the words) and the level of acceptance in respected circles.

[Kirk Gittings]

You are right of course. Looking back it was just after I got out of graduate school so like the second half of 82?

[jp]

Folks my parents' age would say something that happened in 1982 was "just a few years ago", so being off a couple years isn't a big deal.

[Bill Burk]

I wish I could offer a personal illustration of his character, but I never met him.

My wife (who grew up in Carmel and can size people up in a few seconds) says he seemed like a very nice, gentle man. She met him at a Greenpeace booth where he made a donation.

[Merg Ross]

AA to me was the most even keeled, sharing and gracious of men in my limited experience with him but maybe my experience was unusual.

Not unusual. He was a kind man, with a wonderful sense of humor, always attentive and genuinely caring of what you were about. He had plenty to say, but he also had the rare quality of listening. I was fortunate to have met him when I was quite young, and enjoyed a friendship of almost thirty years.

[SergeiR]

To quote great phtographer and artist.

"Thls disease has two causes:

1. Whereas in other arts, the scientifnc element and the expressive one have grown up together, contributing to one another development, in photography the camera and the method for using it preceded any artistic consideration. Photography Was already encumbered with much irrelevant knowledge by the time it get recognition as an art. Technicians unwilling to relinquish their prior rights have since added much to the store of useless erudition.


2~ supefficial procedures and data are acquired too easily. The man who has just bought a new camera considers himSelf to be half a photographer by virtue of the purchase alone. When he has owned it a week, he sees himself as an advanced amateur; after a month, he is an authority.

In no other art does such a situation exist. The purchase of a piano - even a Steinway- does not automatically make one a
Rachmaninoff or a Hourwitz.

The camera, as an example of mechanical ingenuity, attracts thousands
of young men to the field of photography even though their sole
qualification is that they are mechanically ingenious. They would be
better off in another vocation.


Certainly' every art has its mechanical dabblers and scientific dilettantes.
But in photography they presume to run the show and get away with
it more easily.
" W. Mortensen "Monsters and Madonnas"
.

[SergeiR]

Ps - excuse me poor scanning - its late and ocr is a bit wobbly

[Bill Burk]

SergieR,

That is beautiful! Yes of course. Does it say anything that is not completely obvious? NO. But it's at the heart of the matter.

My thoughts were following a similar train. I had been reflecting on the contemplation of beauty, my connection with the forests and rushing water. The feeling I want to capture.

Sometimes I can spend hours at it prior to taking one memorable photograph.

Other times I can barely spare the 10 minutes to unpack, setup, shoot and repack.

[SergeiR]

My thoughts were following a similar train. I had been reflecting on the contemplation of beauty, my connection with the forests and rushing water. The feeling I want to capture.

Sometimes I can spend hours at it prior to taking one memorable photograph.

Other times I can barely spare the 10 minutes to unpack, setup, shoot and repack.

Its very similar with portraits in photography, as with nature, as well. Sure, one can snap your typical commercial portrait in matter of minutes all day long. Or one can think, talk, then take shot or two and have work that would be memorable not because of some "boobage" or because it is "exposed right" or "conforms to standards of our association..." but because it is work of art. Different folks, different strokes.

I am not keen on tech talk mainly because for me, personally, photography is a process of creating images. Image that exists in my head (inclusing image that i see with my eyes - it still only is in my head, btw) is what i am after and photography is pathway there.

[Bill Burk]

In no other art does such a situation exist. The purchase of a piano - even a Steinway- does not automatically make one a
Rachmaninoff or a Hourwitz.

The camera, as an example of mechanical ingenuity, attracts thousands
of young men to the field of photography even though their sole
qualification is that they are mechanically ingenious. They would be
better off in another vocation.

Certainly' every art has its mechanical dabblers and scientific dilettantes.
But in photography they presume to run the show and get away with
it more easily.

As I re-read this in context of the feud between them. I realize that this seems to be William Mortensen taking a personal stab at Ansel Adams.

I'm sorry these guys didn't get along, maybe the rift helped them focus their respective visions. But it seems more a loss to me.

[Bill Burk]

Its very similar with portraits in photography, as with nature, as well. Sure, one can snap your typical commercial portrait in matter of minutes all day long. Or one can think, talk, then take shot or two and have work that would be memorable.

Yes, this I believe. I think it shows when you take your time. If you must work quickly, it helps if you have a deep connection with your subject.

[jp]

Got my dose of good Mumbo Jumbo from "The MOMENT of SEEING, Minor White at the California School of Fine Arts".

How about from Minor, "The camera, however, targets on reality and stops down to get beyond".

BTW, Merg Ross gets written acknowledgment in the book.

[Greg Miller]

If an artist's statement is perceived as mumbo jumbo for a specific reader, then the artist has failed for that reader. After all, isn't the artist's statement supposed to provide information that the reader can use to help understand the artist's work? The best case would be that the writer can communicate what they want using words and phrases that ALL readers can understand and comprehend (assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend).

My thinking is that way too many artist's statements are written so that the writer will be perceived as profound or highly intellectual - they don't care if they have communicated with the reader as long as they look more important by their use of mumbo jumbo. As for me, as soon as I see the words "my work is informed by..." I stop reading. What a stupid phrase... Your work is not informed by anything, You may be informed but your work is an inanimate object.

[Greg Miller]

I also think that very few good photographers are also good writers. Therefore they should photograph more and write less.

[Bruce Barlow]

I rewrote "Finely Focused" to take the Mechanical stuff out (cameras, lenses, loading film holders, developing film, etc.) and concentrate on composition. Everyone had always told me that composition was a mystical thing, reliant often on luck, the alignment of the stars, blah blah blah. Or, students would tell me that they "had composition down, but really needed to know how to load film holders." Oh, please! I responded that I had learned film loading in about ten minutes, but saw composition as a lifelong struggle. What was their secret?

Well, in the spirit of Fred Picker: "that all seemed wrong to me." It seemed like a deeper, more emotional response could be "constructed" out of elements of composition, if only I knew how those elements, and their use, affected me emotionally. So off I went, skipping and hopping to explore elements of composition and how they worked, or didn't, for me. What a blast!

The result was "More Finely Focused," that talks about it all - I hope not too goopily, to use a technical term, and gives the reader 60 - count 'em - 60 exercises to sort it out for themselves. I really tried to avoid "mumbo jumbo" and New Age Art crapola, keeping it practical. The reader can judge whether I succeeded. "Constructed," used in the previous paragraph, is too mechanical a term, but I don't have a better one that doesn't lapse in to goop. "Conjured"? Nope, too Harry Potterish, my owl tells me. Suggestions?

Spoiler alert: While I tried to build up a more conscious "vocabulary" of composition elements and how I apply them, the last thing in the book, prettymuch, is an admonishment to "forget it all," put it in the back of your mind, let it bubble up when needed, and not take a Mechanical approach to composition. Egads! How deadly a Mechanical approach would be! I guess I had realized that I did these things more-or-less subconsciously, and undertook to make my understanding of them explicit (and extend them - I learned a lot developing and testing the exercises). Once understood, I could file them away in the empty caverns of my brain, and heart.

Well, having just returned from a 39,583 mile trip around the country, living out of a Chevy van (sorry, SoCal guys, we'll talk about a workshop in the future, but I just never knew my schedule more than about two days out), I can say that I basically spent 7 1/2 months photographing every day. For me, that means being present in the moment every day for 7 1/2 months, because that's the only way I can ever hope to make decent photographs. It seems to me that Minor and some of the other majors were basically getting at that point - being present in the moment is a prerequisite to making meaningful pictures. I, personally, don't think it goes much beyond that, although I might make a case for emotional vulnerability. When I'm present, I'm really seeing what's there. And if I don't see it, then, obviously, I won't make the picture. My subconscious then intrudes to help me make better, more meaningful pictures. I hope.

Now, it's also true that "90% of success is just showing up," and I certainly did that. I was also Practicing by making pictures. But having been pilloried here long ago for an article advocating Practicing, I guess that Practicing really didn't matter, even though I can see the improvement in my work over the 7 1/2 months...

3,000 plus digital images have survived (probably out of 12,000 made), and I have yet to develop the film. Lots of lessons learned, such as how long it took me to learn to see a different landscape for what it was, and then, I hoped, "push past postcards" to make more meaningful images than ones to mass-print and put in Walgreens. Such as how hard it is, and tiring, to stay in the moment and be present. And other lessons still percolating somewhere deep in what's left of my brain.

The staying-in-the-moment, however, made every day of the trip magical. I was never bored for a minute. Not one. I'm now trying to maintain that state of mind back in Maine, dealing with "mundane" aspects of life. It's hard, but worth trying.

Enough. Please excuse me - it's time to listen to "Music From the Hearts of Space."

[tgtaylor]

I've long believed the "Mumbo Jumbo" that trees can talk. Not sure where I heard since the Internet wasn't around back then, but I recall hearing as a child that trees do scream when cut. More recently I think science showed that the communication from a tree being attacked by beetles can cause uninfected neighboring trees to secrete a barrier to beetles - potentially saving the forest.

Can I hear them? I literally don't think so. But out of respect for the possibility, I try to treat them as if they communicate, and I try to conduct myself in a way that they would most likely NOT scream. An example, friends' Walnut ranch, I did a little pruning. While I was cutting, I talked a bit to the trees and explained what I was doing. I am sure they were cussing me out as I was apologizing for their trouble.

I've always believed that all living organism were sentient creations - not just humans. One surely has noticed this with common household pets like cats and dogs and I believe that the conscientious of life extends to all living organisms. Once I had a monkey and occasionally he would leap onto my chest, grab onto my shirt with both "hands" and yammer something in monkey talk while looking directly in the eye. I studied Physics in college and readily agreed with the proposition put forward by Stephen Hawkins I believe that the universe is capable of spontaneously spring to life.

Dust we are and to dust we shall return. or something like that.

Thomas

[sanking]

"If an artist's statement is perceived as mumbo jumbo for a specific reader, then the artist has failed for that reader. After all, isn't the artist's statement supposed to provide information that the reader can use to help understand the artist's work? The best case would be that the writer can communicate what they want using words and phrases that ALL readers can understand and comprehend (assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend)."

But there is no reason to assume that the artist/writer has any desire to be understood and comprehended by every potential reader/viewer. Throughout history much art has been produced for a select group of brothers/sisters of like mind, hermetically sealed and inaccessible to the vast majority who would come in contact with it. To a large extent that remains true today.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

If an artist's statement is perceived as mumbo jumbo for a specific reader, then the artist has failed for that reader. After all, isn't the artist's statement supposed to provide information that the reader can use to help understand the artist's work? The best case would be that the writer can communicate what they want using words and phrases that ALL readers can understand and comprehend (assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend).

My thinking is that way too many artist's statements are written so that the writer will be perceived as profound or highly intellectual - they don't care if they have communicated with the reader as long as they look more important by their use of mumbo jumbo. As for me, as soon as I see the words "my work is informed by..." I stop reading. What a stupid phrase... Your work is not informed by anything, You may be informed but your work is an inanimate object.

Most art and the accompanying statements are aimed (consciously or not) at an audience. That target audience may be very broad or very narrow and may not include you. For example one's work may target a university academic art audience and use arcane language that is only decipherable to people who have spent some time in that arena. Use of "my work is informed by" is exactly such arcane university art phrasing from the 90's if I remember correctly.

I stop reading when I see some reference to "god's creation"-not because I am an atheist but because I have never found anything except pandering about religion from a modern artist past a phrase like that. Its too easy and really says almost nothing to me except "are you a member of my religious club?". Such references diminish the work for me.

[Greg Miller]

"If an artist's statement is perceived as mumbo jumbo for a specific reader, then the artist has failed for that reader. After all, isn't the artist's statement supposed to provide information that the reader can use to help understand the artist's work? The best case would be that the writer can communicate what they want using words and phrases that ALL readers can understand and comprehend (assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend)."

But there is no reason to assume that the artist/writer has any desire to be understood and comprehended by every potential reader/viewer. Throughout history much art has been produced for a select group of brothers/sisters of like mind, hermetically sealed and inaccessible to the vast majority who would come in contact with it. To a large extent that remains true today.

Sandy

Thus my inclusion "(assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend)."

But if the work is displayed in a public forum, such as a gallery or museum, with associated marketing to the geneal public, then it would make sense for the artist or curator to have a statement that is accessible to that audience. I rarely see that.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thus my inclusion "(assuming the writer wants ALL readers to be able to understand and comprehend)."

But if the work is displayed in a public forum, such as a gallery or museum, with associated marketing to the geneal public, then it would make sense for the artist or curator to have a statement that is accessible to that audience. I rarely see that.

I don't think you can assume that even though it would seem quite logical. I have seen many public exhibits that seemed clearly aimed at scholars in the same field.

[Greg Miller]

I don't think you can assume that even though it would seem quite logical. I have seen many public exhibits that seemed clearly aimed at scholars in the same field.

And that's why I posted in this thread in the first place. That's why so many people complain about the "mumbo jumbo".

But I still see so many artists statements that just come across as the artist trying to be self-important instead of just saying what they have to say in an intelligible manner.

[Bill Burk]

...Well, having just returned from a 39,583 mile trip around the country, living out of a Chevy van (sorry, SoCal guys, we'll talk about a workshop in the future, but I just never knew my schedule more than about two days out), I can say that I basically spent 7 1/2 months photographing every day...

I didn't have to read any further than this to know that I look forward to seeing your photographs.

[Merg Ross]

Although a common assumption, I am not convinced that all artists understand their own work --- a good time to dispense with the statement.

[Jim Galli]

Why is it OK to engage in Pantheism here on the forum, but taboo to speak equally about belief systems that worship a 'Creator'? This seems a double standard to me. Hypocrites.

[Heroique]

You can discuss creator-based belief systems here but sensible guidelines apply.

See my post #4.

My belief system, as I describe there, implies a creator, allows for miracles, "makes me feel in touch with the universe," and proves an effective antidote to Mumbo Jumbo. ;^)

[Bruce Barlow]

Hey, Mr. Galli!

I reread all the posts and can't really find any pantheism in them. I guess I don't quite understand the "hypocrite" allegation, and have not found any such taboo. I would suspect that Jesus loved trees. The Buddha sat underneath one for quite a while. Odin hung from one by the wrists for three days (sound familiar?) in order to gain wisdom.

If you REALLY want to get cranked, go to www.quantumburp.wordpress.com (http://quantumburp.wordpress.com)and read 2 pieces: "The Center of the Universe," and "The Cosmic Dialectic, or, Jesus Wouldn't Tweet." In that order, preferably. And remember, stars died so that you could live..