Declaration of Academic Integrity

HW0205 Academic Communication in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Assignment Title: Assignment 2: A Draft of a Lens Analysis Essay

Student’s (official) Name: Lam Jing Wei Justin

Tutorial Group Number: SOH2

Tutorial Day/Time: Tuesday/1030-1220

Tutor’s Name: Dr Nicole Ong

Declaration

I have read and understood the guidelines on academic dishonesty as found at

http://www.plagiarism.org/ and the penalties for academic dishonesty (see ‘General Instructions’), and
declare that this assignment is my own work and does not involve plagiarism or collusion according to
the University’s honour code and pledge. The sources of other people’s work have been appropriately
referenced. I have also not submitted any part of this assignment for another course.

I give consent for my assignment to be used for teaching or research purposes.

Student’s Signature: Date: 23 March 2023

Note: Your assignment will not be marked unless this form has been completed and signed.
In “Can Philosophy Rescue the Art World”, Michael Philips confronts us with a
fundamental question of ‘What is art?’. On the one hand, there are art connoisseurs
or experts that have their own definition of art. Gravitating toward traditional forms of
art represented by the renaissance period from the 12th century to the 17th century.
These artists did not have any form of artist statement. However, on the other hand,
there are non-art experts who also have their own interpretation and definition of art,
leaning more towards contemporary forms that falls from the late 20th century to
current 21st century. These types of art must include artists' statements to be
considered art and also to be distinguishable from non-art because without it,
identifying if a drawing is art or not is almost impossible. What made Philips ask that
fundamental question was started by him giving us a story of two Australians who
bought an expensive art print for a few thousand dollars and then cutting it up into
pieces one inch square, framed and sold them for $100 each. In line with needing to
have an artist statement for their art, the Australians claimed to be acting from
democratic motives, saying that now more people can afford to have a piece of fine
art and therefore justifying their actions as art. Though of course, the art experts
disagreed and commented it to be an act of desecration. Philips turns to philosophy
for an answer. However, he concluded that there is no universal definition of art and
that it can be interpreted subjectively as how one defines what art is.

In ‘The Use of Binary’, Peter Elbow tells five ways how to deal with dichotomies. The
approach that Elbow is arguing for is to affirm both sides of the dichotomies as
equally true, necessary, important or correct. The example that was given by Elbow
to give evidence for him affirming both sides of the dichotomy is that of how
language is seen. There is one sense that all language is seen as social. But, it is
also equally true that there is another sense that all language is private too, giving
the example of individuals in solitary confinement tapping on the prison walls just so
that they can be somewhat heard by others.

Rather than seeing art on one side as just defined by art experts, there is another
side that art can also be called art even when it contradicts what art experts define
art to be. Now, instead of having only one kind of definition of art, the other type of
art (contemporary) is also affirmed and seen as equally true and important.
Through the lens text of Elbow’s ‘The Uses of Binary’, we can now see that between
the two sides of debates on what is considered art, it can be both equally true and
correct. Both traditional art, where a vast majority not having an artist statement and
also contemporary art, where an artist statement is needed to interpret art and make
it meaningful for the viewer. Since it is concluded that art has no essence, we can
therefore claim that whatever art, though it has seemingly desecrated art by cutting it
up into pieces, can be justified as long as one has an artist statement backing them
up. At the same time, we can also conclude that traditional art, without any need for
an artist statement, is equally correct to be deemed as art. Therefore, though these
two schools of thought seemed to be dichotomous at first, in the end they are both
equally true and correct.

In ‘The Anti-artist statement Statement’, Iris Jaffe explains to us that she does not
advocate artists using artist statements to make their work, art. Jaffe presents us
with five ways on how an artist's statement turns off viewers from the art itself and
potentially not seeing it as art. From it being overwritten, to having too artistic a
statement, it ultimately lands into murky waters and blurs the lines of what the artist
is trying to portray in their ‘supposed’ art. One of her main point of rejecting artist
statements is that visual artists are visual people. Whereas descriptive writing
requires a much higher level of specificity than what visual artists are used to. She
also mentions that artists create their art based on intuition that involves their
conscious and subconscious thought and that is not seen when dealing with literary
works. The various influences that pieced together an art is also extremely difficult
for someone to pinpoint with clear precision into an artist statement. Furthermore,
even if an artist is able to do that, fitting it into a nice 200 word summary is
impossible and Jaffe argues that it is not only impossible to come up with an artist
statement that clearly reflects the artist’s thought and influence, but also not
necessary and it overshadows the actual artwork itself. What Jaffe proposes instead,
is to help artists portray their interpretation to the viewer in clearer terms through
interviews with the artist and the curator or a documentation of the artists’ art studio.
This new source brings forth a counterpoint to what Elbow suggested, which is that
both sides of the dichotomy can be seen as equally true, important and correct. It
argues that Elbow’s claim cannot be substantiated sufficiently and that the two sides
of a dichotomy cannot be seen as equally true and good. This point can be clearly
seen when Jaffe argues that esoteric artist statements reduces the meaningfulness
of the art and possibly viewing it not as art anymore. It rebuts the two Australians
when they justified their action as art through the use of an artist statement. This also
helps to show that artist statements do not make the art but the art itself is what
counts as art.
References:

- Jaffe, I. (2023, February 10). The anti-artist-statement statement.

Hyperallergic. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from
https://hyperallergic.com/67670/the-anti-artist-statement-statement/