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