- Be clear but not simplistic.
- Be complex without jargon.
- Mirror the tone of the exhibit.
These three ideas have been dancing around in my mind since last week’s discussion on voice and tone. At first thought, they seem to be simple ideas, but they soon become quite complicated. My questions are endless:
How simplistic should I be for different audiences?
How complex can I be within my word limit?
Can I use some jargon? What is off limits? Is jargon sometimes necessary?
Gilda Williams attempts to answer a lot of these questions by comparing multiple writings on the same artist but each in a different context. Before our class discussion, I felt like Williams laid everything out there and basically gave me a how-to on voice, but after our discussion raised more and more questions and left me with three complicated ideas, I have concluded that the only way to fully grasp voice and tone is to immerse myself in it. I am now determined to dive into the world of art criticism by subscribing to different websites, both academic and casual, seeing more exhibits and reading more artists statements and reviews on works I’ve seen myself, and following art critiques and comparing multiple writings from them. I am also registered for Chad Dawkin’s curatorial practice class next semester which will definitely keep me involved in the art criticism world.
Will this help me to better understand voice and tone? Definitely.
Will I be able to successfully use voice and tone in my own writing? Hopefully.