My question to self is; how far should one go to understand and explain ones work?
W.J.T. Mitchell says ‘ …prevailing tropes of differentiation between verbal and visual representation (time and space, convention and nature, the ear and the eye) do not provide a stable theoretical foundation for regulated comparative studies of words and images.’ (1)
Perhaps I’m co-opting this for my own interests to imply something the writer doesn’t, but my take is that words and images can never be meaningfully equivalent to each other due to a fundamental difference in nature. So any endeavour to shift something visual into language must fail. Pinning down information too precisely is also undesirable – there’s no fun left with no room for manoeuvre. This leaves the only valid goal as providing clues for the viewer if you desire to supplement the image and enhance the viewing experience.
How does this fit with the situation the artist-maker finds themselves in? I’m studying an MA and the structure of the course expects me to explain my work in some detail. This is a learning opportunity – I should leave the course with a better understanding of my practice than I started with. But does what’s required go too far? Or perhaps, rather, the pressure imposed is self-generated – I should learn to admit I don’t know all the answers? And perhaps this isn’t as negative as I’ve tended to view it in the past since the unresolved question offers an opportunity for debate!
I think pressures may shift in the ‘real’ world – I’m often asked for a personal statement and the awfully named ‘elevator’ pitch is useful to respond to general queries. But I suppose being asked for anything more detailed is unlikely except at interviews or presentations – and at least these are self-inflicted opportunities that can be prepared for!
(1) Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994). Picture theory. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd. p:88
