Quote Originally Posted by Darkroom317 View Post
I really like artspeak and analyzing a photograph formally. However, what really bugs me is people who do not put much effort or thought into the creation of the art object and then pile a ton of pretentious bs in order to prop up their work and hide the fact that their craft is lousy. If the artists intent needs to be stated separate from the work then it does not fit well enough. An artist statement is important but the concept should be visible in the work as well. If the art object has lousy craft or the concept is not apparent within a reasonable time then the work does not hold my attention and therefore is rather unsuccessful as art.
The British art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon plotted the moment The Word became more important than the image, to the Reformation of the C16th. Before then the language of images (iconography) was the dominant form of mass communication. Protestant reformers mistrusted the seductive power of imagery (along with a lot of other stuff like music) and sought to raise the word to fundamental status. The echoes of that change still reverberate through the gallery system, where the accompanying text has become the measure of whether a work is 'any good'. The artwork is now merely a manifestation of the artist, rather than a product in itself. Galleries no longer sell art, they the artist's provenance, underwritten with the language of art criticism.