[HN Gopher] Reflections on mistakes I have made as an art critic
___________________________________________________________________
Reflections on mistakes I have made as an art critic
Author : brudgers
Score : 56 points
Date : 2021-06-29 04:23 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hyperallergic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hyperallergic.com)
| okareaman wrote:
| My problem with critics is epistemological. How do they know what
| they know? The latest example is with a critic who makes a strong
| connection between the improvisational style of African-American
| Bebop music and the expressive style of the Beat Generation. He
| draws a direct line of influence from Bebop to Neal Cassady to
| Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg. It's a nice theory, but I can't
| verify it. It feels true, but is it? Can we say Bebop influenced
| Kerouac because "it was in the air" at the time and there are
| similarities when we compare them?
| brudgers wrote:
| The connection is explicit in _On the Road_ , e.g chapter four
| of part three. And implicit earlier such as when Bull Lee talks
| about the dullness of New Orleans bars and the prohibition of
| whites going into black neighborhoods (where presumably the
| jazz would be better).
|
| Ginsberg himself is generally believed to be the inspiration
| for the character Carlo Marx. But that's something I
| read...generally accepted scholarship so to speak. But here is
| what purports to be a picture of Kerouac and Ginsberg.
|
| https://granta.com/kerouac-ginsberg-the-letters/
|
| It helps to be a bit manic about these things...
| okareaman wrote:
| I am often a bit manic about these things so I need to check
| my assumptions often. I get the Jazz connection for sure, but
| Bebop? Bebop was developed in Harlem in the early 1940's.
| Neal Cassady was a juvenile delinquent in Denver in the early
| 1940's. He enjoyed the ecstatic release of Jazz, but the fact
| that he was a speed freak (benzedrine inhalers) may had a far
| greater effect on his style than anything else. In fact, he
| may have been the one to introduce Kerouac to amphetamines,
| which is how he was able to write On The Road in three weeks
| on a roll of continuous paper. My critic doesn't talk about
| speed. I don't know much, but then again, it seems like a lot
| of critics don't either.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I have a hard time understanding the concept of "art critic". Art
| should be something emotional, so how can one person speak on
| behalf on someone else's emotions?
|
| I like Marvel movies. I hate some movies that are "classic art".
| How can someone classify ones as "wonderful" and others as
| "crappy" - and how Iam i expected to react to that? Trust someone
| else's emotions?
|
| I like Middle Age art and architecture very much. My wife and
| children are in danger of luxating their jaws when yawning when
| we visit a MA museum or building. I can understand that, I do the
| sam ewhen we visit the Orsay museum which I find horribly boring.
| As "art experts", we would have very different opinions on the
| artefacts.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| That's the sort of nihilistic relativism that gives
| postmodernism a bad name.
|
| While taste plays a role in art, and can famously not be
| judged, art also has aspects that define a ranking, from "good"
| art to "bad".
|
| These qualities are harder to define than it is for judging the
| long jump olympics, because they cannot be quantified. But it
| suffice to observe that when people spend a lot of time
| studying art, they tend to value similar things.
|
| One quality I have als noticed with good critics is a tendency
| to appreciate a far broader range of art (form and era) than
| "normal" people.
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| postmodernism never had a good name or leg to stand on in the
| first place
| jfengel wrote:
| I believe that the assertion of absolute artistic merit is
| more dangerous than nihilistic relativism.
|
| A critic can be relativist and still be informative. Their
| goal is not to assign a score to the art, but to communicate
| about it in an informed, meaningful way. Even if you have a
| completely different set of values from the critic, you can
| still appreciate criticism that informs you of what they saw
| and what it meant to them.
|
| Roger Ebert famously hated having to give stars to films,
| because he was afraid you'd be misled. He could give a move
| five stars for being a very good slasher film, or action
| movie, or anything else in a genre he might dislike. Film
| critics see that aspect in spades, since they have often seen
| so many movies that even a "good" example will bore them
| simply because they've seen it all before. But that just
| gives them a reputation for only being interested in the
| obscure and outrageous, which appeal only because they're at
| least different.
|
| A good critic can communicate what they see, without having
| to put an absolute judgment on it, because their judgment is
| unimportant to your decision to go view that piece of art.
| What you want is a preview of what that piece might mean to
| you, a thing established by your relationship to the critic.
|
| Some critics write for the audience of people who may go see
| a piece, and others write for posterity -- the first draft of
| art history. Either is fine, though they're different modes.
|
| This is a postmodernist view of what criticism means, and my
| point is to show that it doesn't have to be nihilistic. Art
| still has meaning to you, or not. But the art critic's job
| isn't to rank it, but to talk about that meaning -- and
| there's a lot to say. A nihilist just wouldn't say anything
| at all.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| I'll take the opposite approach. Children are the best judges
| of Art.
|
| They don't care about historical baggage, they only see
| beauty.
|
| A pile of dead bodies and a naked person crying isn't
| beautiful, even if it's realistic and has an interesting
| style.
|
| Maybe this view of art is too narrow. Wine supposedly tastes
| better than juice, despite the strong taste of ethanol. I
| side with the child on that topic too.
|
| Do rules need to be learned to observe art?
| sevagh wrote:
| I have a discomfort about people showing off their consumption
| habits or tastes. The other day I read a sentence like, "I
| admire a person who listens to tasteful music, does their
| research and has a carefully curated music hobby" or something.
| As if there's a pride or effort to be had in being a "more
| discerning" passive consumer.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| There's "showing off", and there's having "pride" and putting
| in "effort". I don't think these are the same.
|
| It _does_ take effort to become a more discerning (even if
| passive) consumer. That doesn 't make you a superior person
| in some broader sense, and I'd also be uncomfortable with
| someone showing off about this. But taking some (mostly
| innder) pride at putting in the work? Why is that a problem?
| itronitron wrote:
| The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the
| appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily set
| a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the
| appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily
| set a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst.
|
| Most art criticism is for museum shows, where the work is not
| for sale.
| itronitron wrote:
| That the artists' work in a museum is not for sale only
| increases the value of it.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Does it? And value to whom? The work has no sale value,
| because nobody is selling.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Here's how I approach art criticism: It used to be intimidating
| for me, because I worried I was failing when I didn't
| understand some 'great' art, or when I liked a less appreciated
| piece. Art isn't technical writing; easy understanding isn't
| the goal. It's made for exploring and growing; if I already
| knew it all and understood it all, it wouldn't be art
| (arguably); it certainly wouldn't be the art for me.
|
| I don't see art experts "classify" art as good or bad; they
| aren't scoring art like an Olympic gymnastic performance. What
| they do is provide a way of looking at a piece of art that may
| open your eyes and show you things you might not have seen,
| like a tour guide to ancient Rome. The guide necessarily makes
| value judgements about what is most worth seeing, which is
| helpful to me - if I chose by myself, I wouldn't chose nearly
| as well. And the guide can give me context and perspective and
| point out details and patterns that I might not have noticed.
| The guide has a lifetime of studying and touring Rome; I just
| visited for the week.
|
| When I read an art expert say, for example, that a piece is a
| 'great art' and I don't grasp it, now I think: There's
| something here I'm missing, something to find that's wonderful.
| I don't always find it, sometimes it takes decades; there's no
| rush. I've learned to see much that I couldn't before, and it's
| indeed been wonderful and life-changing, and I wouldn't have
| looked in many of those places without someone who had already
| been there telling me about it.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| The critics are for people who have more refined taste and
| don't enjoy strictly commercial movies - so, it's ok if you
| don't get the critics, as they're not their audience.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Critique does not imply criticism. Its more about analyzing the
| significance, historical significance , aesthetic value, or
| meaning of art.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much
| more interesting once I had some more context to understand
| what is happening in a a given work of art.
|
| A lot of things that I previously had enjoyed have become
| more boring as I learn more about the world and have greater
| context.
|
| I find people doing that work useful for the same reason I
| find it useful to have explanatory signs in parts outlining
| the natural mechanisms of various features.
| handrous wrote:
| > Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much
| more interesting once I had some more context to understand
| what is happening in a a given work of art.
|
| In fact, I'd say this is the _norm_. An accessible version
| that I 'd expect many people have experienced is hearing a
| genre of music as "noise" or boring or simply not
| especially pleasant, but then listening to more of it and
| _learning more about it_ by paying attention to artists
| and, yes, critics and even (gasp) academics, and coming to
| really enjoy and appreciate it, and even beginning to be
| able to articulate _why_ a given piece is especially good.
| The same holds for painting, for sculpture, for film, for
| books, for poetry--practically everything. Breezing through
| an art museum, say, without some pretty serious context for
| and _experience with_ the sort of art you 're looking at,
| is a great way to have, at best, a small fraction of the
| optimal experience--maybe still worthwhile, to be clear,
| but just because a great piece doesn't grab you as all that
| special your first time through doesn't mean _it 's_ wrong.
|
| It's unusual for great art _not_ to greatly reward
| education on the part of the person experiencing it, even
| if it 's not entirely lost on those lacking it. A lot of
| excellent art may be downright off-putting without that
| education, even. Look at all the people who complain that
| most books regarded as "literature" are boring, worthless
| crap, or that what are regarded as some of the best jazz
| albums are ugly, random noise, or that a variety of fine
| art is ho-hum or stupid (maybe some of it is! But people
| expressing these attitudes tend to apply their opinion far
| too broadly)
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| It may even be the case that the sine qua non of
| "greatness" in art is that the deeper you look into it
| (and the network of signifiers surrounding and defining
| the work) the more interesting it becomes.
|
| And that's not to say that "accessible" art isn't
| 'great'-- the more pedal steel I play, the more jazz I
| find in country music. It was fun when I was just
| listening to it, but the more I listen to (some of) it
| the more useful, interesting musical I find.
| iNane9000 wrote:
| I like the way this piece highlights the network effects involved
| in the art industry. The primacy of "politics and intrigue" over
| aesthetics or craft, is so sad to me. It's good to see some of
| that truth make it's way to the surface, if only unintentionally.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| I had the same take.
|
| Honestly, I don't know how people work in environments like
| that. Forgetting to give honorable mention to some person or
| cause shouldn't become a conscience issue boiling over into a
| penitent confession about all the people and causes forgotten
| over the years. Sadly, I fear that the "silence is violence"
| claim is influencing more and more of our society. It's like
| we're intentionally creating new mental health situations.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| I have conflicted feelings about this. Is it really a "mistake"
| if you don't understand some subtle context about artwork that
| would not be clear to the casual reader either? Or, as an art
| critic, is it your responsibility to be aware of all these
| subtexts, so you can educate your readers about them?
|
| More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking and
| accessible? If a piece of art resonates only with people who
| share the artist's context (like the mentioned punning
| pronunciation of "boy" in a given dialect), can a critic lacking
| that context review it, or a viewer appreciate it?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I have conflicted feelings about this. Is it really a
| "mistake" if you don't understand some subtle context about
| artwork that would not be clear to the casual reader either?
| Or, as an art critic, is it your responsibility to be aware of
| all these subtexts, so you can educate your readers about them?
|
| Why shouldn't they know? Are you concerned that it is too high
| a standard? They are professionals. When you hire a mathematics
| tutor, shouldn't the tutor understand the subtitles of math?
| When you hire an engineer, shouldn't they know the subtleties
| of the issue they were hired to handle?
|
| > More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking
| and accessible?
|
| Art can't be required to be anything at all, and as soon as you
| impose requirements, some artist will no doubt find a way to
| challenge them (like good hackers ;) :D ). But of course, much
| of it isn't immediately striking and accessible.
|
| > If a piece of art resonates only with people who share the
| artist's context (like the mentioned punning pronunciation of
| "boy" in a given dialect), can a critic lacking that context
| review it, or a viewer appreciate it?
|
| I get the question, but first, we can't make blanket statements
| about it: "can" someone appreciate it? Who knows? It depends on
| the artwork, the person, how much time they have, maybe the
| lighting and the information they find (including from the
| critic), etc. People aren't prisoners of their contexts - we
| all are necessarily very limited by our short lives, but we can
| learn. I know more about the world than what I've directly
| experienced. The choreographer Mark Morris said,
|
| _" I don't think everything's for everybody. I like that
| people specialize and have specific interests. I like the idea
| that people remain curious; I like to say that my work is not
| for everyone, it's for anyone."_
|
| One major effect or benefit of much artwork is to see the world
| through someone else's eyes - someone with great vision,
| observation, and skill in conceiving and communicating what
| they see, who has thought deeply and worked for many hours on
| how to say this one thing.
|
| You can (if you wish) forget what you bring into the room - the
| artist doesn't know you, they didn't create this with you in
| mind - and dive into a totally alien point of view and
| personality, one that does not respect or understand you at
| all, one that isn't pulling punches for your sensitivities.
| It's a personal conversation with this creative, thoughtful
| person, someone creative, has thought deeply, and expresses
| themselves in highly creative ways - but who is completely
| unaware of you. You can stand right next to them, observe them
| closely, walk around them, explore, leave and come back, stalk
| them (the artwork) obsessively, and it's not even rude. It's a
| good way to get out of yourself; it's space where you can be
| deeply, disturbingly challenged, and consider and reconsider,
| in perfect external safety without anyone knowing, if you wish.
| otde wrote:
| > I have conflicted feelings about this. Is it really a
| "mistake" if you don't understand some subtle context about
| artwork that would not be clear to the casual reader either?
| Or, as an art critic, is it your responsibility to be aware of
| all these subtexts, so you can educate your readers about them?
|
| I think this broadly depends on what role you view art critique
| as having. In the opening paragraph, the author does a great
| job (IMO) of outlining his perspective:
|
| _" As a critic, I'll suggest that I can sensitize my readers
| and listeners to what they didn't see or grasp or apprehend
| when they witnessed the same art or performance."_
|
| If you view critique as a way of exploring new perspectives,
| subtle context can be one of the ways in which a critic can
| help add to the conversation surrounding a work. While it's not
| necessarily a critic's responsibility to understand every piece
| of background info at every moment, it's also understandable
| that a critic might view their own omission of a particular
| piece of context as a failure to provide additional insight
| that they believe they might have been able to contribute in a
| review, especially they view the goal of their critique to be
| that act of "sensitizing."
|
| > More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking
| and accessible?
|
| Part of what Rodney might argue here is that it's not necessary
| for art _itself_ to be striking /accessible, but a good critic
| can _make_ such art accessible by virtue of dedicating
| themselves to the understanding of "subtle contexts."
|
| > If a piece of art resonates only with people who share the
| artist's context (like the mentioned punning pronunciation of
| "boy" in a given dialect), can a critic lacking that context
| review it, or a viewer appreciate it?
|
| I'd argue that context isn't a strict requirement for
| appreciation, but that it can often be a useful way to
| construct additional meaning, to find additional appreciation
| for a work beyond the initial appraisal. It's different for
| everyone, but I love art and art critique, and these are the
| ways of thinking that I've personally found bring me the most
| joy/fulfillment when thinking about art.
| staplers wrote:
| As with any work, the great artworks do both. They are both
| immediately striking to laypeople yet also intrigue those deep
| in the art world.
| biztos wrote:
| I think his "boy" mistake was not getting the context that was
| obvious to the work's main audience, Jamaicans, when he was
| reviewing a show as a (diaspora) Jamaican. Which I agree is a
| very forgivable mistake and probably nobody outside of social
| media would take him to task on it.
|
| To the broad point, as an artist and also a collector I say
| emphatically No. Some of the best art is subtle and requires a
| lot of engagement to "get." The striking, like the large, is
| often overrated.
| brudgers wrote:
| Context is not everything. But it is a lot in how we think
| about images.
|
| Da Vinci's extravagance of _Il Cenacolo_ was justified for its
| subject matter. When the fresco is falling apart and despite
| the technical sophistication of Leonardo's hand, the meaning
| rides on nearly two millennia of words about the last supper of
| Jesus in Christian narrative.
|
| Those familiar with the narrative and the painting title can't
| unsee the context. Or contexts...there's no single viewpoint.
|
| I look at Cappa's D-day pictures.
|
| https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/conflict/robert-capa-d...
|
| How I feel about them is tied to a lifetime. And the lifetime
| of my parents and grandparents generations as I experienced
| those people.
|
| But still I have to be told that these are pictures _from_
| Omaha Beach. And it must be "Omaha Beach" because "June at the
| right bank of the Duove River" is the wrong context for
| interpretation. To make something beautiful
| should be enough. It isn't. It should be.
| Landscape with a Blur of Conquerors Richard Siken
|
| https://poets.org/poem/landscape-blur-conquerors
| [deleted]
| munificent wrote:
| I really really like this article. I'm trying to think of
| something useful to add beyond that, but it's hard. I just think
| it is both personally admirable and useful for society to put out
| messages like this that accept a level of fallibility and seek
| compassion and understanding.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-01 23:03 UTC)