I've always wondered how photographers and other artists come up with the art statements usually found next to their pieces. It really just seems like bullshit art rhetoric thought up on the spur of the moment, weeks after the actual photo was shot, all so they can fill the little piece of paper that needs to go next to the 'art piece' so that nobody notices the insane price tag and shits themselves from shock. Joerg Colberg at Conscientious, which is his very cool blog on photography, art, and life, shares a similar view:

It's interesting (and a bit sad) that when you look at what is commonly called fine-art photography it always comes with a statement, which typically contains some sort of explanation or motivation for the photography. You never get to see something like "I just wanted to take some beautiful photos" or "I liked the way those rubble piles looked, so I took a bunch of photos." I wonder why. I have no way of actually proving this, but I am convinced that many photographers do not have all that stuff from their statements in their heads and then go out to shoot the photography. I have the suspicion that some of them, after having shot their photos, have a hard time writing something that can pass as a statement, because "I just wanted to take beautiful photos of rubble piles" somehow doesn't appear to be acceptable. I don't mean to say that I have a problem with somebody's wish to explain his/her photos or reveal the motivation behind them or whatever else. What I do mean to say, though, is that I personally find it perfectly understandable and acceptable if somebody does not want to write a statement. But that's not how the art world works.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?