Comments on: In support of arts criticism

By: dan

dan — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:13:20 +0000

while the artist and audience is permanently confined to being part of a piece, the critics carve for themselves a place outside of it looking in. i think it is true that, like the empty space in a sliding tile puzzle, a trusted critic helps both the artist and the audience to slip around and see works in new ways. The critic is also, these days, a voice on the waters, constantly helping in the fight against drowning.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:37:28 +0000

i want critics to teach me – help me see the good in a piece that i way otherwise reject – not necessarily change my mind – or point out that which i may miss in what i love – help me understand…

By: ZSTC

ZSTC — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:33:37 +0000

The problem with many quantitative aggregator models is summed up by that sidebar on Pitchfork that shows ‘Most Read’ – it’s not a neutral register of reader interest, because people click through *purely because* an item has previously been heavily read, thus perpetuating its high ranking.

Criticism will never die off completely, and we should aggressively fight its corner. One way is to reconceive it: everybody is a critic. Criticism is simply the application of criteria; critical thinking is something that every artist engages in while recording / writing / painting / editing, it’s something that everyone does everyday. It’s part of everyone’s mental furniture, and as such is deserving of the closest attention, study, explication, and dedicated pursuit.

By: Yoshi

Yoshi — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:12:52 +0000

I agree completely. I think neither the crowd-sourced (e.g. Yelp, IMDB) nor the quantitative aggregate model of criticism (e.g. Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes) can offer the same degree of depth or complexity as a single intellectually engaged critic. I also think there’s a place for a more popular kind of criticism than what’s offered by the ivory tower, which tends, consciously or unconsciously, to use criticism as a means to regenerate the conditions of its own exclusivity. “Theoretical” jargon grows like kudzu in the humanities not really out of necessity, but rather because it consolidates symbolic capital in the hands of a highly specialized intellectual priesthood.

For me Peter Schjeldahl is an example of a critic writing for a mainstream venue who evinces an obvious familiarity with “theory” without letting it encumber or determine his criticism. Personally I like that he doesn’t let some mirage of intellectual propriety subvert the subjective aspect of his judgments.

By: Kirsten Gronberg

Kirsten Gronberg — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:16:48 +0000

I have found that criticism in general, not just about art, is increasingly poorly received. The norm is to applaud ideas, accomplishments, art works, etc. and change the subject. To critique someone’s work or project, to refuse to use the words “interesting” and “nice” to describe it, is an offensive and negative act.
When we choose not to define a problem (and then seek to solve or at least to explain it) with the things we enjoy, we slow progress. Without critique, without expressed opinion, creativity is lost.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:49:27 +0000

Oh Geeta, I hope we find time to talk about this during your going away party (since it seems likely to be the only occasion I’ll see you before you leave.) If only we’d been able to go to some screenings together.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:51:00 +0000

Artists need critics to be the people who represent their audience, the authority/boss figure missing from the life of a free agent. The critic is the one who has to step up to tell the artist when they are not producing work that lives up to their potential. In terms of what work makes it into the cultural consciousness, the critic is at least as important as the artist.