Kamal Aljafari Artist Talk

Comparison between Rafael Lozano-Hemmer and Kamal Aljafari

Different approaches to present works
The talk was a complete opposite to Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's one. Rafael talked in academic language to illustrate his works in a very systematic way with well presented powerpoint and video of the documentation of his works, while Kamal kept explaining "Recollection" film and his thought about the film in his way. The structure was loose, relaxed, not planned. It can also reflects on his film that he did not have a certain strict rule and meaning for his film, he mentioned "freedom" many times and he stood his artist position very firmly that he did not think it is necessary to use another language like what Rafael did to categorize his works, to speak or explain.

The concern of the public's view on their works
What I heard from his talk is that he cares a lot about memory and history. The nostalgic attitude motivated him to create films by creating a new language. He emphasized again and again that he cares only about cinema and he like to do on his way without considering public's view. It is a total opposite to Rafael's attitude because he is very concerned about the judgement from the public, the integrity as an artist, so he took care of the logos and cares about how people's participation to his work is so important.

After thought
To me, I think he would like to be playful with what footages he got, twisted them, manipulating them, change the position of the protagonists and the passerby in the films. I wonder if democracy is a deep rooted idea for artists after listening to Rafael and Kamal's talk. Because of them thought about freedom without taking control were a precious value. To let the footages speak themselves (Kamal), to let the public treated his work as a platform and let them alter the work without strict rules (Rafael).

Is there a contradiction when someone wants to free something but also own the authorship? Although Kamal did not put voice over to the film because he explained that he wanted to let the images speak to themselves, but during the talk, he spoke a whole story when the film was playing, and explain that he wanted to give another experience to the audience. I felt very weird that why he was so firm about the film but contradict himself and use another way to present it?
What is the role of an artist when the final work was presented in another way that was not consistent to the intention of the original piece? Why artist has the right to alter whatever they have publicized already?
What is the power of an artist? Sometimes I wonder if I should change my idea of the original piece that have been shown before. Do the audience allow this power to exist?

In defence of Conceptual Art

http://outofsync.dk/gallery/i-hate-conceptual-art/

Dan Graham: I hate Conceptual Art - An Artist Interview

I totally don't agree with him saying that conceptual art is only about philosophy. You simplified conceptual art way too much man. Conceptual art is about ideas, philosophy is just one of them, it needs art to present the philosophy. I love you Dan Graham but I don't agree with you this time.

Cubism, Dada, Abstract Expressionism, Pop are all new movements coming from new ideas that succeeded in self-consciously expanding the boundaries of art!
you are just making another conceptual theory by pushing conceptual art to another extreme. I know you do! You don't hate it, you literally saying that you love it.

Yes conceptual art implied that aesthetics, expression, skill and marketability were all irrelevant standards, but the value of it is keep reflecting what is art. Much Conceptual art is self-conscious or self-referential. We absolutely need it.

By the way, artist interview may or may not be a mode of acting only. can't be always true, im quite skeptical about his words.

Writing an artist statement? First ask yourself these four questions

Writing an artist statement? First ask yourself these four questions

Rafael Lozano-Hemmer

To become an artist is difficult. To become a successful artist who can support their lives is even difficult. It is not easy to work on a large scale project, but Rafael did it.
His talk introduced a few main ideas that I treasure the most.


He talked a lot about his own art pieces and how he related community with his art. The main idea for him is to observe human behaviour, how they can react to his artworks.
During his talk, I realised that he is very good at positioning himself in different field.
When he is a speaker, he uses the academic language in a sense that he divided his works into different categories.
When he is a businessman, he uses the language in terms of profit, beneficiary.
When he is an artist, he understands that the logos may raise doubts among the public, questioning he is working for money or for arts. His sincerity towards arts.

It is very risky that whenever a large scale work appears, it also raises a question about the economic

Method Acting The Artist Interviewer Conversation -Tim Grinffin

is it a kind of art writing to portray an artist in the writer's perspective only?
is it a reproduction product only?
there is no relevance between the artist themselves and the reports reflecting the artists themselves?
are there two identities only? in the art world and in the art written world?
just like theories and artworks, we borrow terminologies from philosophy to relate to artworks.
artists pick the words as artist statement
art writers pick the words as interview

first hand and second hand perspective?
the persona of an artist is inflected in any reading?
the power of an interview, the interviewee or the interviewer, the one who write seems need to be ethnical to the artists by removing a certain preconception and assumptions

can we get an authentic answer from the artists if we ask the same questions in different ways?
it seems like a detective that we have to find out the truth about the artist by ourselves.
maybe even the artists are afraid of answering the questions that they don't know?

Why it is important to understand the truth? What is the truth?

a dimensional answer? transparent? opaque?
Stanislavski may portrays a comparatively pessimistic way to define wt is good interview what is bad interview. It is quite problematic to understand if the interview is true in a sense that the artists do not act in another way to talk about their works, changing their own persona and if the editors do not open up the conversation and holding a preconception to serve the reader instead of the artists?

At last, Tim Griffin suggests a method of using dialogue as a form of representing the interview instead.

After reading this, I think the key to reflecting the truth is to open up without too much manipulation of the writing and interpretation. Again, it goes back to first information or second information.
we can all play good but what is the truth behind?

Personally I do like video bloggi

Analyzing the Artist Interview

Artist interviews are always a question to me. Some artists reject interviews because they do not think the report represents them or they do not want to be looked as an idol. Interviews are a kind of publicity to promote, market, label the artists' works. For me, it is like a supplementary evidence to support the artworks for the collects and serve the art market. As long as it is related to the art market, the interviews serve as a function that it may not be as authentic as possible. We usually only hear the good side of the interviews and I wonder how true it is. I never believe the whole report because it is written by another person that may not be wholly represent the artists themselves.

Often, the purpose of an interview may not solely introduce the artists because the magazines or the platform that publishes the interviews may have their own objective. The reasons they pick the artists for interview may have a hidden intention. For example, it may promote the art market because the value of the artists' works are expensive or it may have a political point of view that the artists can enhance the standpoint of that platform.

It is always suspicious and I always want to question why this artist. 

From the artists' point of view, it may be a very precious opportunity to promote their art pieces that they may act in a way to convince how valuable the artworks are even though it may not be true. Reporters may also being misled by the artists if they do not have a rich art education background or experience to analysis the artworks or artists. I am curious about the last paragraph that mentions "Method of acting" which may resonance to what I mentioned.

Keywords coming from my mind after reading this

Authenticity
Act
Fallacy
Scepticism
Interpretation 

Feigned

Knotty
Veracity
Libel
Raconteur