Anna's Response

I was intrigued by Megan's question about being able to verbally communicate one's work to an audience so that others can understand the subject matter and conceptual background of a piece. Fully understanding something usually allows people to communicate and/or explain this "something" to others. As an art history major, being able to describe and analyze all aspects of a work of art is something that is drilled into my brain; in a way that is both beneficial and somewhat sad, there is a formula to viewing, describing, and analyzing art that art historians use. From my perspective, artists should also employ strategies when developing ideas, thereby enabling them to communicate those ideas to multiple audiences. But what if a work of art is not necessarily intricately developed? What about the elements of works that are purely emotional and spontaneous? Sometimes works are entirely emotional and spontaneous. How then do artists convey their messages to others? And should they? This viewpoint therefore becomes somewhat controversial, especially with so many standards and "rules" within the art world being broken consistently over the course of art history. Some feel that artwork should speak for itself and explanation should be secondary or not important at all. However, in contemporary society and art, explanation has become increasingly important, especially with art becoming more and more obscure.

I don't know if I can offer advice for how to improve an artist's skills with describing and defending his/her art, but developing a thorough idea and continually questioning and analyzing his/her own work often heeds positive results and benefits the artist in explaining the work to others.