I am coming to the end of a second graduate program and so I have been reflecting on what I would argue is the biggest benefit of grad school: having a community that is set up to provide constant feedback and critique. In particular, in a school setting, you are usually getting opinions from people with wildly different interests, disciplines, and concerns than you. This means you are often asked questions or given advice you may have never considered otherwise, making it an incredible growing opportunity. Getting genuine critique outside of a school setting is, of course, totally possible, but does take work to set up and upkeep, especially if you want to make sure it doesn’t become an echo chamber.
Beth Sheehan. Spread from upcoming artist’s book, 2026.
So, while I have been reflecting on all of the great things I have gotten out of critique and advising in school, there is one common criticism that I take some issue with. It essentially boils down to a general consensus that the work is too much. A variation of this sentiment has been told to me by at least a dozen people but it is typically only said to me after I discuss the research, ideas, or conceptual foundation of my practice. I think that it is a fair assessment, after all, I research quantum physics and neuroscience as part of my work. But I also feel like the criticism gets at two things that I think are flawed logic.
First, I think the criticism is based on the assumption that all of the mental work I put into the art should be accessible to the audience just by looking at the work. This is where I would like to open up the question: should that be the primary goal of creating artwork?
I’m not sure it’s a simple answer one way or the other, but here is some of my argument. I think the viewer does not need to access everything I have put into the artwork. Visual art cannot communicate the intricacies of complex ideas with fidelity. There is ALWAYS translation and that act of translation is, in fact, the reason to choose visual art. If I expected my audience to understand everything I was thinking about, I would (and do sometimes) write an academic paper about my research and theories instead. Words are better vehicles for communicating ideas.
Beth Sheehan. Catalog of Memories, 2024. Screenprints on plexiglass, painting, and inkjet printing.
Regarding the second flaw, I worry that audiences are no longer inclined to give artworks a long look and, instead, the advice for artists is to adapt to a shorter interaction. If an artist has spent months or sometimes even years creating an artwork and then the audience experiences it for less than an hour (or really in 27 seconds, as is average) there will, of course, be considerable information loss. I think sometimes it is presented as a design problem that can (and should) be solved: dear artist, please find a way to condense and streamline your thoughts into a digestible, consumable packet of visual information accessible to the majority of viewers.
No, thank you.
I want artwork to be conceptually complex. I want artwork to be a way of thinking. I don’t want it to be easy. I worry that if clear, synthesized communication becomes the highest goal for art, then the entire artworld will become the visual equivalent of a bookstore of only SparkNotes, no actual novels.
Beth Sheehan. Re exhibition installation shot. 2025.
I think an artwork can seem like too much (especially too intellectual, too scientific, or too philosophical which are the most common notes I receive) when an artwork is expected to be a tool for communication instead of a tool for understanding. If we expect that the visual information is the only part of the work that is holding the burden of the ideas behind the work, then yes, it probably seems like too much. But the artwork does not have to live without context and the context distributes the weight of that burden. Part of the work lives in the title, the materials list, the artist statement, an artist talk, a studio visit, a conversation in the gallery.
So, maybe it’s a valid point to bring up: when is the conceptual depth of the artwork too much for the work? Is it better for the work to be less so that some people don’t feel overwhelmed? Is it better to make the work more digestible, easier to understand, simpler? Is the benefit of doing so only for the audience?
Beth Sheehan is an artist currently living in Chicago, IL. She teaches paper, print, and book workshops around the US and virtually. She co-authored the book Bookforms. Sheehan has also worked as a professional printer at Durham Press and Harland and Weaver and was the Bindery Manager at Small Editions.
