Yes, you are correct, it doesn't make the work a failure. However, with my practice and my intentions, I personally do think I have failed if I need a statement to explain the piece. In addition to contemporary audiences, I like to think of how future archaeologists might interpret an artifact, without any explicit context.

To me, a piece that requires context and explanation is just another genre of work, and it’s a genre I appreciate. It can reveal that the creation journey often looks nothing like the finished product, and for many artists, the value of the work comes primarily from the process of expression.

I can get behind this. The issue for me is that artists who rely too heavily on their statements to impart meaning might be limiting themselves in their visual vocabulary and the conversation. Having known people who get upset when they are trying to convey very specific concepts outlined in their statement, but audience members choose to interpret it differently, the failure, to me, is within them, not the piece.

Part of my problem might be that when I was starting out, the only places in a gallery available for words was the name of the show and the title.