Why do artists engage art critics to speak about their artworks?

Nobody can explain an artwork better than who made it.

Even if the artist acts subconsciously or unconsciously, the process issuing an artwork is opaque, as encrypted into a black-box: you may just gaze to the output.
Perhaps symbologists and psychoanalysts could try to explain the meanings of an artwork, but not even the most notable or qualified person can dim the fact that critiques are always personal opinions, and no science will ever own the soul without destroying it.

An artwork is something absolute, and sometimes even the artist has not much control over it or something to say about, anyway the artists are the only ones that have at least the right to explain their artworks, so they should speak more about them, and the beholders wanting to understand should ask the artists, and not someone else.

Many of the artworks of any epoch are cryptic indeed, several of mine too. The aim of an artwork should have to be in the relation between the artist and the beholders so it should have to be comprehensible to them, but often artists make art for an intimate need, so after the creative process ended, it is a natural habit to ask “what is it”, “what is the meaning”.

Most of the times artworks are metaphors.

In my case, artworks have always a predetermined concept behind the surface.

No comments:

Post a Comment