Does the work you are creating from the Syntax exhibition have a system of communication? Is so, what is it? Is the system universal or personal?
The piece I am creating in reaction to the Syntax exhibition is entirely dependent on language as a form of communication. Both the Mel Bochner piece I am drawing inspiration from and the piece I am creating myself utilizes written language and therefore relies on the words to act as signifiers to communicate the concept. The system I am using is more universal than it is personal since it does not necessarily touch upon individualistic aspects of language such as phonation. Instead, it focuses on language as the collective contract, conforming to systematized conventions and requiring viewers to subscribe to it as a social institution in order to grasp the concept. The concept itself is portrayed by the words which work as symbols that hold multiple meanings. Depending on the viewer and their understanding of it, the meanings can range from the direct and conventional to the more complex and implied. So although my work utilizes written language as a straightforward means of communication, it is still sensitive to the viewer's interpretation.
The final chapter of Art & Fear sums up the author's main advice. It emphasizes the individuality of the artmaking process while encouraging artists to work diligently and consistently. It also points out the importance of questions in relation to answers, and how questions are sometimes more important. I thought the writing was full of quotable advice, some of which was encouraging and insightful.
Overall, I thought the book started out strong. The discussion of execution, of vision, and of fear all rang true. However, the further the book progressed the more it fell apart. In an effort to leave their writing open-ended enough to apply to all art forms, the artists failed to supply any definition of what art is or is not. Although this is a difficult question to answer with any confidence, it becomes increasingly obvious that they must settle on a definition in this particular situation in order to solidify their reasoning and to justify their book at all. Still, they continue to refer to art in a flimsy context and the writing continues to lose coherence. The way they alter its implied meaning to suit whatever point they are trying to make creates clumsy and confusing chains of logic. "Art" becomes so subjective that it loses any communicable meaning.
Still, I think the book is useful and refreshingly blunt in its advice. I would gladly recommend it to anyone. While the advice is clearly beneficial, the author's reluctance to define "art" degrades the writing and removes some of the confidence I had hoped to find in it. Unfortunately, I saw all of the benefits of Art & Fear overshadowed by this lack of definition, which allowed the writing to fall into an entanglement of metaphors and pseudo intellectual banter. Despite its brevity, Art & Fear spends a lot of time saying very little.
