Letter
It’s where Andy Warhol had the craziest parties, where Mark Rothko spent half of his life, where Alex Katz’s assistants mix colors and Jeff Koon’s craftsmen follow instructions. Every artist has their own unique way of working, different experience and has different stories in their studios. Studio is where the masterpieces are produced and where all the trials and struggles happen but hidden from the audience. It is the sacred and secretive place where people patiently wait outside for the artists to present his or her masterpiece on the opening day of the show. Aspects of the studio practices were overlooked which has developmental in modern and contemporary arts. Pre-modern art, art making was patron by the church or the state but today artists are independent and ‘free’ from the institutions and studio is a place and haven where artist find their philosophy, meaning and significant and where of finding knowledge about the self and the world.
I remember back when I was studying at the Art Theory and Practice Department at Northwestern, I would visit MFA studios and Open Studio nights in Chicago, and it was where the ‘real’ conversations happened. It was just not about the inspirations, the prices of the art work but it was more about the process and the stories of the artists. Everyone had a story behind their work. I have encountered many art magazines that deal with predominately with reviews, portfolios and information where the audiences are the outsiders who are being introduced the outcome or the product of the finalized piece of work. Unlike the previous art magazines,
Sincerely,
Joyce Kim
4 comments:
I love this idea of inverse, interior and index, where you get to see the artist at work. It seems like your magazine is really focused on letting the public see what informs the artist's work and kind of exposing the mystery behind the artist's studio. My question is, will doing this ruin work? Will it provide too much information? What happens when you do know everything, what does that do to the imagination?
What about artists that are performers? What does this mean for the artist that works with para-fictions?
I think it's really interesting that being able to see an artist's studio is something that happens constantly in "growing phase" of the artist. Senior studios in undergraduate departments and graduate studios are places of constant conversation and critique. While the artist is learning and defining their work, it seems, their studio is fully accessible. As they evolve, however, and mature into artists with private space, these studios lose this accessibility and often become jealously guarded spaces where only the chosen few may enter and indulge in the artist's creative aura. How confident are you that the artists would be willing to present their space? Or could it be just as interesting to have a section of the magazine dedicated to the artists that refused? Could this be equally telling?
I feel impressed yet uneasy. The unorthodox approach taken by Studio+Teller walks a fine line between being freshly innovative and staunchly disapproving. On the more positive side, the idea of exposing the “perspective of the ‘artmaker’” by means of their private studio is riveting. It would be semi-analogous to reality tv shows that unleash “behind the scenes” views of real life individuals, forming a closer, more familiar bond between actors and audience. In this case, the magazine would bridge the link between artists and spectators. If successful, Studio+Teller will be the first of its kind, surpassing all other magazines in personality and makeup.
However, considering the realm of practical consequences, I share the same concerns as Tracy. By delving into the privatized world of artist’s styles and techniques and revealing those secrets, like a form of advertisement, how can you insure that the works and reputations of artists will not be crippled by public scrutiny? Baring the studio of artists runs the possible risks of producing fakes and imitators which could potentially downgrade the elevated status of artists. The proposal, for example, of incorporating the diary of an artist into the editorial might encourage this undesirable outcome.
Furthermore, if the mechanics behind works are laid out, then the mysterious beauty of their creation is stripped. Is this cost worth the benefit of “direct conversations with the artist(s)” as you call it? Could a possible resolution to this conflict be determining to what degree artist’s studios are divulged to the public eye?
Building on what Tracy wrote, while I like the idea of the open studio, I'm concerned about the amount of transparency that this magazine involves. I'm particularly concerned about the impact of the audience on the artist. Have you thought about how having an attentive audience might affect the artist's thought processes and execution of the work? Would the artwork benefit or suffer from the artist's potentially increased self-consciousness?
On a slightly different note, how would the open studio affect the aura of the artwork? Because the audience would be able to see the work from its conception to its completion, the work becomes much less mysterious; does it become less powerful as a result of this transparency? Could it still look back at the viewer if he or she could see right through it?
Post a Comment