Artist statements are generally the absolute worst application of written language imaginable and Hyperallergic looks into this linguistic quagmire. Thing is writers are just as guilty of buying into their own words, it is just that their peers will actually read and ridicule them for their crimes against communication. Let's face it writers are like piranha. Not so for artists, even the ones who can write generally find a supportive group of friends who want to applaud their rare linguistically gifted ally. Thus the bar is simply very very low. Hell, even curators seem to have about a 60/40 chance to producing vocabulary in search of insight. Yet, in defense of artists actually making statements, most of the greatest artists and curators were masters of the words they employed. Judging from; Picasso's one liners, Kandinky's aspirations, Judd's specificity, Smithson's slyness and Komar & Melamid's comedy all hold up even if you dislike their art. Generally the biggest problem with artist's statements are they are forced, tortured wraiths of ideas that telegraph their intended targets (hidden behind favorite vocabulary) rather than proffer any insight into what they have presented. (Smokescreens!) Generally it is better to let the statements come from the process and not let a word lead the work... it makes you sound like a recent MFA grad, which is SO art school. Tip, distill a few very short stock epithets you can whip out and develop an essay around them only after using them for a long time in social settings.

Drama over Munch Museum in Norway... of course.