Local Arts Scene: Cohort Continues Conversation About Arts Writing

Jamie Ratliff leads a discussion in observation and interpretation.

The Duluth Arts Writing Cohort held its second meeting in the board room of the Duluth Art Institute this past Tuesday evening. The group's ultimate aim is to build a body of arts journalism with a focus on Twin Ports visual artists and their work.

The panel this month was comprised of arts writers Ann Klefstad and Christa Lawler, and Jamie Ratliff, who teaches art history at the U, with our moderator being freshman ARAC Executive Director Drew Digby, who earlier in his career spent a decade as a journalist.

At the beginning of the meeting Tim White brought up the idea of recording the meetings so that we might have a historical record available for the future. In a sense it would provide a snapshot of this moment in our community history as well as a reference point that we can re-visit. A concern was raised that recording the meetings could potentially dampen open exploration of sensitive subject matter. Ultimately, the group seemed to accept the adoption of Tim's idea for the next meeting.

After introductions we opened the session with an observation exercise in the John Steffl Gallery in front of one of the paintings in the current Art of Grief show titled A Figure Scape by Diane Bywaters. Jamie Ratliff led the exercise, asking us to write down on a sheet of paper what we saw when we looked at this large painting comprised of human figures of various races and genders as well as skeletons. "What do you see?" After a short period of time in which we were all busy scrutinizing and scribbling she then asked, "What is the artist's intent?"

Ratliff then led a discussion that began with the point that writing is a form of translation. The starting point is the work itself, what the artist has done, not simply how I feel about it. (This point was later reiterated by Ann Klefstad in the subsequent discussion.)

When we returned to the board room Drew Digby led a Q&A with the panel that circled around our theme from various angles.  Here are a few of the takeaways for me personally that came out of the discussion.

-- Sharon Moen said, "I write for an audience." In other words, who I am writing for dictates to some extent how I write, how I say it. Jamie Ratliff concurred that after making a formal analysis of a work the actual writing has to be restructured based on who you are writing for.

-- Ann Klefstad stated that her aim is to write about the art itself. "My job as critic is to raise peoples' interest" in the work. Her focus is on the work itself. As a writer she strives to become familiar with and really know the artist's work. The artist statement is not important to her.

-- Jamie Ratliff, on the other hand, always considers the artist statement and writings. The contrasting approaches showed that there is no one correct answer in writing about art. (Christa also reads everything, she said.)

-- The panel was asked about their approach to the large piece the rest of us wrote notes about. Jamie's theme would include something about gender and race, and about the representation of women and men. She would bring in context and perhaps reference Gauguin, Degas and the objectivization of women. Ann noted that she would discuss painting and drawing styles. Christa would write about it in the context of the show about Grief. "Always look for a moment of entry."

-- In response to a question from Drew about writer's block, Jamie stated that she writes in the middle of the night, a period of time when there are fewer distractions. Ann stated that she writes out of economic necessity. "Economic panic" doesn't allow her the luxury of writers block.

* * * *

In addition to the panel discussion we each received a useful handout that provided elements and principles for discussing art. Concepts like form, content and context were defined, as well as some general guidelines on the principles of design. Understanding principles of visual language are an integral part of arts writing, principles that help us better define what we are observing like the rhythms, patterns, visual movement, proportionality, variety, emphasis contrast, unity or disunity, and harmony or discord... all of it useful information.

My initial response to the discussion portion of the meeting was that the time went too fast, and the topics raised were interesting but insufficiently explored. I left hungry for further discussion, and believe others may have as well. The good part of this is that these meetings seem to be stimulating the possibility of greater dialogue outside the constraints of the ninety minutes we've been temporarily shoehorned into.

In short, the meetings are creating an appetite for more dialogue. And that's a good thing.