"Explore"

This is like my number one pet hate. I'm not gonna pretend that this is not just a left over art-school-bullshit-radar symptom, but one thing that bothers me whenever I go to see almost any show that leans heavily on establishing itself in its own artist statement/press release, is the use of this little weasel word. Explore. The main problem I have with this word is that it seems to imply an expansiveness wrt the subject matter which often, and not even to the detriment of the work is not even attempted, but I mean....

I feel like exploratory strategies in art imply more than an elucidation, illumination, juxtaposition etc. That exploration becomes the stand in for a vague set of assumptions wrt the relat. b/w the artist and the final product. As though the mere act of artistic mediation becomes in itself an "exploration." I'm not buying it guys.

This, imo, misuse of that particular word feels partic. heinous in instances where the particular concerns of the artist feels kind of modest on a conceptual level. Explore has come to stand for an uncertain and seemingly willingly obfuscated process. And I get where ppl are coming from on this. It is easier to imply a vague strategy w/-in a body of work, esp. when conflicting strategies/instincts/precedents/values constantly seem to disrupt the potential for a coherent and stable voice or elaboration of ideas w/in the oeuvre, even as that condition structures the possibility for the same. At the same time, w/ the deflection of the work onto the statement, which is then deflected onto this seemingly evasive concept of "exploration," the possibility for actual meaning to emerge seems constantly deferred.