Skip to main content

Artist-Writer-Artist: The Parameters

While this subject of artists who write and writers who create art never leaves my mind for long, it's been absent on this blog for a while, except in the form of teaching the Journal and Sketchbook class in different places this year. With this post, I am proposing to restart the series, and to continue the investigation into the work of artist-writer-artists, in the hope of gaining some fresh insight into the creative process of individual artist-writer-artists, and into the creative process generally as it manifests itself in visual art and the word.

Jenny Holzer

Robert Indiana

Maira Kalman

The last time I talked directly about this subject, I made a distinction between artists who incorporate text into their work as just another visual element similar to a colour or a shape, and those artists who spend some time working with words, who explore the possibilities of expression that arise in the 'opposite' medium. So Jenny Holzer, who works in gnomic phrases cast in neon or in the form of giant billboards, and Robert Indiana, who made giant sculptures out of words, are less interesting to me than someone like the writer-illustrator Maira Kalman, whose witty narratives in word and image have graced the New Yorker's pages for many years. I'm looking for artists who put aside the visual art for a period, and try to make a work of art based on language, or writers who put aside the poetry or the fiction and attempt to make a visual work of art.

What about mixed media works? What about illustrators? What about artist's books? What about Holzer, Smithson, et al? Even if they use short bits of language to make a visual statement, isn't there something useful to be discovered about creativity from that?

Yes, these may also be worth considering at some point. But I'm looking for artist-writer-artists, people who are engaged with a different form for a prolonged period of time. I want to use my own aesthetic sensibility to find good examples of each, in the hope that the investigation will NOT prove that you can only make good work in one medium. I want to talk about these people, and at times to talk to these people.

I found a lot of valuable resources about artists who use words at Artists Who Write, a blog set up by the University of Oregon-Portland for an interdisciplinary MFA course. There is a lot of information here, though most of the artist-writers they list can be grouped into a few categories:

  • Word as image: artists who use words as another visual element, like a collage shape (Fiona Banner).
  • Word as slogan: you read the words for their meaning, and the meaning is nearly always intended as a socio-political critique (General Idea/ImageVirus, Mark Manders).
  • Artists who work with the serial nature of film, or artists’ publications: There are a lot of artists in this category (Aleksandra Mir, Fiona Banner again, Carey Young, George Chakravati, Alfredo Jaar), and there is a decades-long history of artists’ publications. They all deal overwhelmingly with the form of the book, the abstract idea of seriality, making multiples, what constitutes originality – again, with words receding towards being just another visual element.

A useful classification of what constitutes an ‘artist publication’ can be found on the website for the EU’s archive Artists’ Pub: http://www.artists-pub.eu/artists-publication/ :
“artists’ books, multiples, book objects, artists’ newspapers and magazines, ephemera such as posters and invitations designed by artists, photo editions, postcards, stamps, stickers, graphic artworks, Xerox copies, stamp artworks, sound art (on records, cassette tapes, audio CDs), radio art, multimedia editions on CD-ROM and DVD, artists’ videos and films, net art and computer art.”
This still leaves the following categories:

  • Artists who write to explore image and metaphor (e.g. poetry)
  • Artists who write to explore narrative (e.g. fiction/non-fiction)

As a summary of these parameters, I'll end this long blog post with some examples, offered without commentary:



 Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On my 300th blog post

Crikey!

It's my 300th blog post. And I seem to remember that in my 200th blog post I said that I would start quoting from John Ruskin's "Praeterita", after which this blog was named. Well, better late then never, so quotation number 2 is below.

First, though, some thoughts on this blog and blogging in general. I started Praeterita at the end of last year after reading a book by an art-marketing guru called Alyson Stansfield that recommended it as a means for artists to publicise their work better. But from the start I thought it would be more interesting to talk in a discursive way about my wider interest in art, and artists, and the history of art. After a desultory beginning where I only posted once a week, my blogging habit has now grown to the point where I am posting sometimes twice a day, and more than 45 times per month (helped enormously by the Blogger feature that lets you save blog posts with a post-dated timestamp, so that you can put posts in the bank to …

My worst open studio

Most open studios are notable for nothing really happening. You sit there waiting for people to come into your studio, eat all your nibbles and guzzle the free drink, and then leave after a cursory glance at your work. Usually, the worst thing that happens is that you get stuck in a boring conversation with a dull person,

But there was one time a few years ago when I got into one of these conversations, and quite quickly the person I was talking to started to make homophobic remarks about another artist in the building. After a few minutes, I decided I'd had enough and asked him to leave. He seemed genuinely surprised that I had any objection to what he was saying, which in retrospect makes me even angrier if he thought he had a sympathetic ear.

He asked me why, and I told him I didn't like people talking that way, and I said: "This conversation ended 30 seconds ago." So he left.

So, nothing dramatic like Jackson Pollock getting drunk in a fancy New York apartment a…

Van Gogh on Degas

From a letter dated July 31, 1888:
“Why do you say Degas can’t get it up properly? Degas lives like some petty lawyer and doesn’t like women, knowing very well that if he did like them and bedded them frequently, he’d go to seed and be in no position to paint any longer. The very reason why Degas’s painting is virile and impersonal is that he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a petty lawyer with a horror of kicking over the traces. He observes human animals who are stronger than him screwing and f—ing away and he paints them so well for the very reason that he isn’t all that keen on it himself.”
Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader