top of page

Reflecting on art: Two Modes of Making

There are two primary frameworks/modes in which art is made. One is art that is born out of a studio practice- inspired by other art (either made by the artist in the past, or by other works they have seen) and focused primarily on material mastery and/or experimental innovation. The other is art that is born out of a need to articulate and process a person's real lived experiences in the world.


In the first framework, each piece is a bit like a a technical iteration upon previous pieces. The thing being articulated is in some way similar to those pieces (either conceptually or experientially), but the refined product shows constant improvement and novel innovation. This practice focuses on rich discovery/mastery of the materials and practices being used (including conceptual material/practice, like in the case of the many readymades that followed in Duchamp's footsteps) . That isn't to say that work made in this framework is necessarily derivative- but rather, that the artists primary goal is the production of a work that is technically marvelous and exciting in a way that is rooted primarily in the pursuit and practice of art making, rather than personal emotional situations.

Art made in this mode can be found sitting in modern studios and galleries often. Much of it (in the contemporary context) leans into abstraction and theory. It's stated meaning seems to be discovered along the way, or to be applied after the production has started (or sometimes after it has been finished...) The emotional core of work sometimes fails to resonate, or comes of as disingenuous for viewers. I've had conversations with many artists who mostly make work in this mode, and they often loathe the moment when they have to write a statement and give the work a name. It's not that the artist isn't passionate about the work, but rather that they don't know how to satisfyingly articulate exactly what aspects they care about- which is not at all their fault! Especially when dealing with work like this, the ability to articulate the thing that excites them (that gives the work a reason to exist and explains why it's hanging in front of you) depends heavily on an audience having a lot of the same studio/institutional experiences as the artist. This makes it difficult to explain on a plaque. It's a piece that makes you cry if you've spent 10 years looking at other art. In some way, the work asks that you already know what it's "supposed" to achieve before you've even looked at it.


The second type of art attempts to capture, invoke, or reflect upon a sensation that the artist has directly experienced. It attempts to synthesize an aspect of the real world and clarify and distill it into a new experience.


In order to make art in this second framework, the artist needs to have a wealth of lived experiences to draw from, and a strong memory of an emotion that propels them to make the work. In many ways, this type of art ends up being more approachable to an audience outside an academic art institution, because it is directly spawned from experiences that anyone might also have in the world. This is not to suggest that art in this framework speaks directly to subjects typical of everyday life, but rather, that the meaning and intention of the work were developed first (in whatever inarticulably vague notion) based on circumstances unrelated to the art itself, and the process of creating a work happened as a direct result.


There are pitfalls in this mode of art making too. Sometimes an artist engaged in this mode will make something that speaks deeply and profoundly... but only to them. The personal context that produces the work is so elaborate that it isn't directly or obviously able to be re-constituted in the mind of a viewer. There is an argument that work made in this way doesn't particularly care for an audience in the first place. The primary objective of the maker was not to have something ready to display, but rather to capture and process a feeling or situation in their own world for an intrinsic (often therapeutic) purpose. (Perhaps there is something to be said about the potential potency of an art object made for a very specific and limited audience, but that should be its own topic)


Truly great artists are wrapped up deeply in both worlds- engaged frequently in both an academic context that encourages practical/material innovation, and a lived context that gives them something real and meaningful to continuously make work about. Entering academia will give an artist a great foundation for making work in the first mode, and leaving academia will give an artist a great appreciation for work made in the second mode.

bottom of page