There are some people who believe you don’t need any words or explanations (context) with art. Period. I understand that, at least to a certain extent. However, that statement lacks context, to put it mildly. It’s too broad of a statement to include all art.
I would argue that it depends on your goal and who your audience is, or who you want to see the work and who speaks your language (creative language). If you want to make pictures and say nothing, simply post them, publish them, or exhibit them, you can. You’re allowing the audience to interpret or create a narrative for the work. Remember, text taken out of context is pretext. In other words, people will make up context for your work or ignore it completely. Imagine trying to read a book or watch a movie with no plot, no beginning, middle, or end. No story. In my opinion, few people would be interested in that kind of material unless it was connected to a larger concept in some meaningful way.
I believe all artists (and humans in general) are storytellers at their core. We create stories, or illusions, to explain our lives, to make sense of them, and primarily to repress our existential dread. We need to tell stories; they make us human (Homo sapiens). Artists are acutely aware of this need. They pursue it with purpose and meaning, trying to squeeze everything out of life that they can. Expressing their greatest fears, their biggest questions, and their greatest joy and love of beauty.
There is no “rule” or set way to tell a story. You can drizzle and drip paint on a canvas, or even paint a canvas black or white and reveal or tell a story. You can make abstract, blurry pictures or shape clay into some abstract form. It’s about context. It comes down to your narrative and your audience. All art is not for everyone—it’s never “one size fits all.” It’s a language as unique as spoken and written languages. If your “art” is appealing to the masses, it’s probably some form of “commercial art” consumable by most everyone. This essay is about personal, fine art work.
The artist has a specific audience that will understand and appreciate the art. Some audiences understand and appreciate documentary work. This is probably more of a stretch than most would make, but I think of Diane Arbus, Richard Avedon, Mary Ellen Mark, and many more who worked in the blurry (no pun) area between art and documentary work. No one, at least I think no one, would argue their pictures are art; they tell a story and are powerful pieces of work. And then there are artists like Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko who demand more interpretation and investigation. Pollock’s work is about the paint itself and his movement. We’re used to seeing paint represent something, but Pollock challenges us with his work. Rothko believed that his paintings could communicate a spiritual or emotional experience to the viewer, and he often titled his works with evocative, poetic titles that suggested a deeper meaning beyond the surface of the canvas. Many of his paintings are untitled, however, leaving the interpretation up to the viewer. His paintings are a powerful exploration of color, form, and emotion, and they continue to captivate and inspire viewers today. These artists are on the other end of the spectrum of what I’m talking about, but they still adhere to my thesis. Most people won’t spend time with work like theirs; it’s too abstract, and the viewer feels they have no context for the work, which is true. In reality, the viewer isn’t equipped to appreciate or understand the work. Part of it is interest in the work, and the other part is education. Learning their language so you can appreciate their work is a big part of it. Like I said, art consists of as many languages as there are artists. Not everyone speaks that many languages.