ARTISTS TALKING

# 1 [22 June 2009]

Steve McQueen, Britain’s representative at the Venice Biennale, was giving a press conference about his artwork, a short film depicting the setting of the Biennale after the glamorous art world had left.

A reporter from a Sunday newspaper asked whether the two dogs in the film were a factual part of the scenario or fictional. In other words, were they there when he was filming or did he have them specially brought in?

McQueen was irritated by this question. Another reporter asked another question about the dogs. McQueen got even more irritated but he didn't answer the questions. He didn't feel that he should have to explain his artwork.

I found this interchange interesting and unsettling. Why should an artist have to explain her/his work? Why can't the work speak for itself and let the viewer make their own meanings?

I suppose I'm trying to say, in a long winded way, that sometimes I might get forced into explaining my work when I don't want to. It's often expected for artists to have artist statements, to have some theory behind the work when  at times there isn't anything to say.

I'm trying to put my cards on the table from the beginning.

I'm not going to try and explain my work but I will try, through this weblog, to explore my ideas, observations and creations in order to become a better artist.

For me to explain the work, immediately, the possiblities are limited. I don't want to limit my work as an artist. I don't want to limit the response to my artwork.