(I decided to put this here because I completely rewrote most of it for my final version. In this version, I completely miss the point of an artist's statement, but it works as a useful write-up of some of my research/analysis.)
I aim to explore futility, and productivity for the sake of productivity: the perceived importance of “doing things.” The line between “productivity” and neurotic ritual can appear to blur when productivity starts to become something that happens primarily for the purposes of preventing a feeling of futility.
The perceived importance of “doing things,” from the point of view of someone who makes art, can go hand in hand with the pressure to have something to say. Some of my work deals with the idea of having nothing to say.
I am also interested in how inefficiency with time becomes a “positive.” Time invested into an object’s creation adds to its perceived value. An object that is created using a method or medium that requires less time is often seen as inferior, even if it is superior in quantifiable ways (such as factors to do with practicality, or efficiency with other resources). This idea of “inferiority” can be conveniently attributed to aesthetics, as they are subjective.
Changing tastes can make it less appropriate to use aesthetics as an explanation for the value of an object (or craft). For example, attributing the worth of a decorative object created in an out-dated style to aesthetics becomes less convincing. It becomes clearer that perceived value is often based on time invested; inefficiency has become a source of value.
Various industries are seeing examples of services or goods whose value stems from time invested, and not practicality or aesthetics. Older methods of creating images, still or moving, can be highly valued, even if they no longer match up with people’s tastes and are less practical. Value is placed on goods that are hand-made as opposed to mass-produced. Each example can be explained with various excuses such as nostalgia and sentimentality, but what they have in common is that they use up more time. We are valuing inefficiency.
Reasons I changed my mind about some of this:
- If I use examples to justify some of these opinions, it becomes very easy to find flaws and inconsistencies.
- Sometimes an out-dated, decorative object whose creation took a relatively large amount of time is actually not valued (i.e. it is sent to a thrift shop or thrown away). Or sometimes objects like this are valued because some people genuinely do like the aesthetic, and while this occurs less frequently, there are fewer of the objects left. This means that the object's value is due to simple supply and demand.
- I was going to mention inefficiency with resources/money, for example when rarer materials are used for objects while there is no quantifiable benefit - but this is also simply supply and demand. It is not that inefficiency with materials has added to its inherent value.
- Minimalist objects (furniture etc.) can take less time to create but are still valued for their design.
- Sometimes mass-produced objects actually are worse quality, or at least this belief is prevalent enough.
- In conclusion, the relationship between inefficiency and perceived value is not strong enough to make sweeping judgements. So I guess my point is just that sometimes we value inefficiency, such as when we praise Yayoi Kusama for, in her words, suffering for her art, and when demand that everything is painstakingly hand-created, and not made by machines or outsourced (Damien Hirst etc.).
