Audience: Why have you written your artists statement in this way?

Artist: What way is that?

Aud: Well. I find it confusing.

Art: Are you trying to derive a direct and specific meaning from it?

Aud: Well. There are some words I don’t understand. Would you agree that unless I am the kind of person who is prepared to go away and look things up then the work this statement represents is not for me?

Art: Its not that simple. If I were too specific with the language it would leave no room for interpretation. The art-work I have made doesn’t have one specific meaning. The statement needs to allow for that.

Aud: So that means that at one end of the spectrum, you have accessibility with no room for interpretation and at the other, stuff that is hard to access but with lots of room for interpretation.

Art: Basically

Aud: But one can be both accessible and open to interpretation, surely

Art: Possibly. But look at your opening line

Aud: What, you mean about your artists statements?

Art: Yes. I’m sure you implicitly understand what an artists statement is, but I bet there are plenty who don’t. So it’s not as easy as you think.

Aud: Point taken

Art: Trying to write an easily accessible statement without being too specific is very hard.

Aud: Ok, but there’s no need to destabilise the clarity of ontological meaning through the contingent assemblage of non-didactic verbiage – is there…


Edmund and Anna Harcourt – Hogarth Productions

We are currently developing a new sound art piece with artists Alison Ballard and Mike Blow. The new piece involves eight 2-meter diameter, air filled, light-emitting spheres from which the new sound work will emanate. More details can be found on: The performance has the potential to work very well in non-arts spaces, such as town centres, so we have been looking into how to the kind of language that can be used to successfully communicate with people who do not regularly visit the arts. If you are interested in taking the survey we have created on the matter, please click here: