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