The historical, political, cultural, and sociological frameworks of the geographies we inhabit are fundamentally different from one another. Especially when considered at the level of delineated borders, where forms of belonging, educational systems, and politics all come into play.
Although context may be as old as language itself for an observer, the past 150 years have marked a significant developmental trajectory within conceptual/experimental and contemporary art. Within this evolution, the physical presence of a work detached from its label is insufficient to define itself; context becomes vital. When factors such as regional and cultural differences, along with the essence of constructed identity, are introduced, an evident slippage emerges [both in communication between sender and receiver, and in meaning itself].
Following the phase in which art attempted to break away from its classical trajectory [shifting from form toward meaning] it is no longer possible to claim that a work is complete once its physical production is finished.
Rather than adhering to a historical inclination that seeks to answer how a work was created [with a focus on technique and material], today we bear the responsibility of conveying why it was created, the narrative behind it. This is essential to preserve semantic integrity, regardless of whether the viewer actively seeks it.
We are therefore in need of a system in which the artist’s statements, the curator’s interpretations, and the exhibiting institution’s display strategies are all structured around these criteria [forming a coherent chain of transmission]. This requirement is what renders the relationship between artist and artwork meaningful. It is precisely here that the distinction emerges between purchasing a ready–made print or decorative object for a wall or lobby, and engaging with a singular artistic creation.
Even though detailed segmentation could be made across categories such as socio–cultural, institutional/economic, art historical, medium/technical, curatorial, audience–based, intentional, and digital/media frameworks, the interwoven nature of these categories makes clear distinctions increasingly complex. For functional clarity, context can be provisionally classified under the following categories (which will be elaborated in future texts, without conflating it with selective perception):
I. Temporal
The elements constituting an artwork may only hold meaning or recognizability within a specific period, era, or limited timeframe.
II. Spatial
When the exhibition location/space/venue changes, the work may generate entirely different semantic experiences among viewers.
III. Epistemic
a. Language
Nuances and references embedded in any given language extend beyond translation itself and shape interpretation.
b. Memory
When works reference historical knowledge stored in the viewer’s memory, or when personal ones are activated, the connection between the artwork and the artist’s mental projection becomes more comprehensible.
c. Material
The historical, cultural, and material properties [availability and processability] of the medium used in production directly influence the meaning of the resulting form.
d. Universality
Certain widely accepted forms of knowledge can evoke consistent or highly similar associations [globally] without requiring explanation, independent of other categories [and not necessarily tied to symbolism].
Imagine a yellow/and/black tape marked ‘Do Not Cross’. In a construction site, it immediately signals worker or visitor safety. Yet when encountered in your neighborhood, surrounded by police, it suggests a recently committed crime. Similarly, red droplets on the floor in an artist’s studio are first read as spilled paint; but in a high–crime environment, the mind interprets them as blood.
You would likely ignore/not notice the same object if you encountered it in the trash. But in an exhibition, you are compelled to engage with it [questioning why it’s there]. Everyday objects [readymades], which began to emerge over a century ago, have become integral to contemporary art and conceptual practices that aim to shift context. Yet due to the art market’s emphasis on decorative consumption, such works are often marginalized, perceived and presented as inferior forms of art.
In ‘white cube’ institutions, the now–mainstream practice of detaching labels from artworks results in experiences where viewers are handed printed sheets at the reception desk, while gallery staff [unable to fully convey the context as an artist or curator might, and often overwhelmed] cannot meet the interpretive demand. This has become embedded in gallery management exercises.
These sheets usually contain alphabetically ordered lists of works, while the gallery layout itself follows a curatorial sequence. Considering that viewers typically navigate exhibitions while holding phones or bags, how realistic is it to expect them to flip through pages to locate information, and to rely on a sheet whose capacity to convey meaning is uncertain? Exhibition texts, carefully printed catalogs, and brochures are increasingly replaced by repurposed press releases handed to visitors.
In a hotel or apartment–complex lobbies, you probably have encountered various abstract sculptures before. In abstract art, it’s already too difficult to anchor meaning close to the object itself. Yet even so, one rarely encounters labels specifying the artist, materials, or techniques [assuming these works are indeed artworks and not industrial decor]. At that moment, the artist is reduced to a painter or decorator; the painting becomes a wallpaper accompaniment, and sculptures become anonymous fillers [objects stripped of intention, authorship, and conceptual grounding].
There are also works that provoke the familiar reaction: “Is this art?” The question itself arises from the discrepancy between the viewer’s cultural/artistic framework and that of the creator. Since viewers carry vastly different historical, social, and cultural experiences, expecting uniform interpretations is unrealistic. This diversity is precisely why symbolism has largely ceased to function effectively over the past few centuries.
For this reason, the integration of the artwork label with the work [positioned in close proximity] is essential. Only then can viewers with differing backgrounds access the artist’s intent and achieve both visual and conceptual satisfaction.
Additionally, artists exhibiting internationally are increasingly subjected to social media backlash and public targeting, particularly within the framework of heightened linguistic sensitivity and political correctness. Including the zeitgeist of the period in which the work was created [and/or the meaning assigned by the artist] directly within the label, without requiring external mediation through interviews or speculation, has become crucial for accessibility in the post–19th–century context.
The notion of ‘open work’ [and the reductive assumption that “The work means whatever is perceived”] clearly fails under socio–cultural conditions. Accessibility in art is typically understood in physical terms: reaching the venue, meeting infrastructural criteria. However, grasping the semantic integrity of a work and understanding its production context is equally critical. When this need is unmet, the increasing prevalence of ‘cancel culture’ within exhibitions and fairs becomes inevitable.
Secular/Atheist or Christian artists are labeled Islamophobic; white European artists are labeled racist; protest artists are labeled discriminatory; human rights activists are labeled insensitive [as they travel and the location context disrupts]; male artists are labeled misogynistic; Western artists are labeled pro–colonial. These reactions largely stem from an intolerance born of insufficient contextual transmission, and of course, the polarizing identity politics.
For this reason, artwork labels should prioritize museum–level detail over simplified, sales–oriented formats [clarifying not only the work but also the artist’s motivations and the personal or social frameworks informing their practice]. The same issue persists at the level of curators and critics, where it remains largely unaddressed.
Attempting to interpret artworks solely through imagination [without engaging with their context or narrative] amounts to little more than divination. It only widens the gap between meaning and object. Across academia, the art world, and the media, the lingering influence of outdated models from classical art continues to obstruct progress.
Erhan Us
Conceptual Artist — Writer — Curator
Be First to Comment