Habits, being
Dec. 26th, 2002 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gurdonark"Culture is the habit of being pleased with the best and knowing why"--
Henry Van Dyke
I believe sometimes it is easy to get into the habit of believing that culture "should be" different than it is.
I'm troubled by the paradox of "quality". On the one hand, I accept that there is some hiearchy between what is "good" literature and "bad" literature, and what is "good" art and "bad" art. I am sometimes attracted to the notion that the distinction can be expressed as the difference between "art" and "not art" or "literature", and, as Truman Capote put it merely "typing".
As time goes on, though, I begin to wonder about the cultured distinctions we tend to make in our appreciation of the arts. I read a very intriguing piece by Christine Biederman in the Dallas Observer about the problem in arts criticism. I know Chris slightly, because I used to work with her husband, so I know that her "back story" is that she is an attorney who transformed herself into a writer of magazine pieces and arts criticism.
The article in question here may be found at http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-12-19/arts.html/1/index.html. Ms. Biederman points out a recent paper on the arts, entitled "The Visual Art Critic", which may be obtained for free download by visiting www.najp.org. This work, a survey of some 169 media art critics, gave Ms. Biederman pause.
The news on art criticism is no surprise. The news on art, for that matter, is no surprise. There are scads of art critics, most of whom are ill-paid, many of whom work only part-time. There are scads of artists, who produce far more art than the market demands as a commercial matter. As our United States government phrases it:
"Fine artists mostly work on a freelance, or commission, basis and may find it difficult to earn a living solely by selling their artwork. Only the most successful fine artists receive major commissions for their work. Competition among artists for the privilege of being shown in galleries is expected to remain acute. And grants from sponsors such as private foundations, State and local arts councils, and the National Endowment for the Arts, should remain competitive. Nonetheless, studios, galleries, and individual clients are always on the lookout for artists who display outstanding talent, creativity, and style. Population growth, rising incomes, and growth in the number of people who appreciate the fine arts will contribute to the demand for fine artists. Talented fine artists who have developed a mastery of artistic techniques and skills, including computer skills, will have the best job prospects"--from the Employment Occupation Outlook handbook, located at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm.
Ms. Biederman makes a fascinating argument that arts criticism is too positive, and that critical standards should be more stringently applied. She invokes as an example of how criticism should be the equivalent of the character Addison DeWitt, the critic in All About Eve. Those who do not know this film can probably get by with knowing that he is the archetypal cynical, worldly, "runs with the wolves but has his own bite" vision of what a critic should be. Mr. DeWitt is jaded, but he knows what is good, and what is not.
It's a seductive idea, isn't it? It's tempting to believe in the notion that there is an intelligentsia which knows what is "good" literature, and what is "lesser" literature. It's a comfort to know the feeling that in the arts there is a "right" way, and a "wrong" way, and "major artists" and "minor artists". Never mind that the standards keep changing. Never mind that Hemingway has risen and fallen twice in my own short lifetime, although my entire lifetime has taken place after most of the critical interest in him had waned. Never mind that the rejuvenation of authors and artists seems to bear a strange synchronicity with the marketing of those artists and authors by major coporations publishing media works. If we cannot all believe in God, at least we can all believe in an aesthetic.
Ms. Biederman draws the fascinating conclusion that what we need is more poison-penned criticism--more "this is good" and "this is not". She feels that too much artistic criticism proves to be milquetoast cheerleading. I am sympathetic to the notion that anyone who reads or views or participates in the arts must have standards. I am also sympathetic to the notion that some artistic expression is better than other artistic expressions. But I wonder if we have not moved beyond a time such a meaningful "definition of standards" can take place.
Let's first say that it does not take too much research to lead one to question if American criticism has ever been anything but an elitist's game. Too many books and arts reviews have been written by insiders, in some cases friends of the writer or artist. But let's pass over the venality of people, for a moment, and look instead at what is the desired ideal.
I urge the position that the problem with arts criticism, and the crisis of the arts in general, arises because too much effort has been made to define a single vision of what the arts should be, minimizing the critic and the artist. The radical changes in the visual arts during the time period 1880 through 1980 taught us that so many assumptions we made about what art might be, whom it should motivate, and how it should be enjoyed, were just so limited. The result was that visual art was de-calcified, and new eyes could see new visions in new ways.
I am attracted to, and dabble in, the concepts inherent in the mail art movement. Like many people, I believed in those concepts before I knew what mail art was, and then was surprised and pleased to find a movement already existed with which I could so largely agree. The portion of mail art notions which resonate for me are the ideas of "art without judgment". I do not claim to speak for mail art, so let me tell you what my own vision of "art without judgment" means:
a. each person defines his or her own aesthetic, but goes the extra mile by also according full liberty to do so to each other person;
b. art is no longer the province of the museum or the gallery, but is instead the province of each person who wishes to participate in it or view it;
c. art no longer depends on the engines of commerce and criticism to exist, but is created by people for their own enjoyment and the enjoyment of their friends; and
d. art is accordingly avocational, as it is too important to be something from which one must earn a living. If one must earn one's living by one's art, one owes one's daily bread to other people, with different aesthetics, who do not understand one's art. Accordingly,
one should always work at fields other than art, and do art as an avocation.
In my view, one does not reject any art, but instead filters the art which one wishes to see from the art which one does not wish to see. It's not a particularly radical notion.
There are no real rules, either. If one wishes to sell or buy art, then feel free. The notion that it should be avocational is not intended as a fetter, but as a liberation.
If one wishes to read an art review, or attend a curated show, or worship the same art gods that the magazines worship, then feel free. There are many wonderful artists in galleries, and museums are worthwhile places. In short, my view of art and literature is not about guilt, or rejecting corporations, or rejecting academia. Those things are merely corollary mild positives that can indirectly result from following this view of the world.
I love to write book reviews on Amazon.com. I like that any ordinary reader who can fill out a routine form can memorialize an opinion on a book. I notice something as well. When a book I am considering offers six formal newspaper or magazine book reviews, and six reader reviews, I will read the reader reviews and skip the formal reviews. It's true that of the six reader reviews, two might be two line blurbs with no meaning. But it's also usually true that one or two of the reader reviews will tell me things that will really help me assess whether I will like the book. Too often the magazine reviews just try to show me that the reviewer is well read. The process of building an aesthetic is just too time-consuming to permit the writer to actually say he or she did or did not enjoy the book, and why.
I'm not saying that I do not draw quality distinctions in my assessment of the arts. Shakespeare is superior to routine sitcoms. I do not believe that machine-made sentimental landscapes are the equivalent of Gainesborough. But I do believe that life is too full of richness for the way in which some people approach the arts. I drive down a street in eastern Los Angeles and see a great mural of the Virgin of Guadulupe. Do I really need to think about its place in the arts, and the cultural backstory? Can't I just say "neat mural"?
I am admittedly very much a middle-brow, but it does seem to me that we all spend too much time sorting and defining and trying to figure out how to earn money from the arts. We've created specialist schools, to which nobody belongs. Everybody has their own particular little niche, which is the Only Right Way. As a result, we are all frustrated, because the world is not at all like our own small true vision.
I believe that literature, arts, and music were meant to be first and foremost recreations.
The tribute to people is that their recreations can mean so much to them. We went to have a fun evening out, and we discovered that we could glimpse our souls, just a little. But now the arts are a matter of High Capitalism and an anachronistic set of almost gnostic cults of Higher Criticism.
The result is that I meet people who "can't be artists" because they cannot earn a living from the corporate machinery, and they can't win favor from academia. But I am troubled that these two false choices are what defines an artist. I am not an Anais Nin fan, but I am alwys intrigued by how much of her life was spent doing work that nobody cared a penny for, but which she knew was her own path. I believe that people would be better off if they decoupled art from money and art from fame.
I know that my position makes one spend one's work days doing something other than one's fondest dream. But I believe that it is better to earn a living at a job that pays, and do one's art avocationally, than it is to fail to earn a living at art, a job which rarely pays. I also believe that there are far more creative people than markets for creative work. What should those people do? I think they should all create for friends, for family, and for themselves. Will my notion create a market for art? I doubt it. But will it create a salve for the immense frustration that people feel? I think so.
I guess I do not believe that Fate requires so many people to feel that they "must" be entitled to earn a living in the arts. Instead, Fate has an odd way of not seeming to support most artists at all. I do not know of any scripture where it is written that artists "should" be entitled to follow their dream. I do not know of any other calling in which market forces "should" be relaxed. The only way I can see to liberate oneself to follow one's dream is to liberate oneself from being dependent on art for money. One should earn one's money some other way.
What would the world lose if we had no art criticism? I'm not sure.
Henry Van Dyke
I believe sometimes it is easy to get into the habit of believing that culture "should be" different than it is.
I'm troubled by the paradox of "quality". On the one hand, I accept that there is some hiearchy between what is "good" literature and "bad" literature, and what is "good" art and "bad" art. I am sometimes attracted to the notion that the distinction can be expressed as the difference between "art" and "not art" or "literature", and, as Truman Capote put it merely "typing".
As time goes on, though, I begin to wonder about the cultured distinctions we tend to make in our appreciation of the arts. I read a very intriguing piece by Christine Biederman in the Dallas Observer about the problem in arts criticism. I know Chris slightly, because I used to work with her husband, so I know that her "back story" is that she is an attorney who transformed herself into a writer of magazine pieces and arts criticism.
The article in question here may be found at http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-12-19/arts.html/1/index.html. Ms. Biederman points out a recent paper on the arts, entitled "The Visual Art Critic", which may be obtained for free download by visiting www.najp.org. This work, a survey of some 169 media art critics, gave Ms. Biederman pause.
The news on art criticism is no surprise. The news on art, for that matter, is no surprise. There are scads of art critics, most of whom are ill-paid, many of whom work only part-time. There are scads of artists, who produce far more art than the market demands as a commercial matter. As our United States government phrases it:
"Fine artists mostly work on a freelance, or commission, basis and may find it difficult to earn a living solely by selling their artwork. Only the most successful fine artists receive major commissions for their work. Competition among artists for the privilege of being shown in galleries is expected to remain acute. And grants from sponsors such as private foundations, State and local arts councils, and the National Endowment for the Arts, should remain competitive. Nonetheless, studios, galleries, and individual clients are always on the lookout for artists who display outstanding talent, creativity, and style. Population growth, rising incomes, and growth in the number of people who appreciate the fine arts will contribute to the demand for fine artists. Talented fine artists who have developed a mastery of artistic techniques and skills, including computer skills, will have the best job prospects"--from the Employment Occupation Outlook handbook, located at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm.
Ms. Biederman makes a fascinating argument that arts criticism is too positive, and that critical standards should be more stringently applied. She invokes as an example of how criticism should be the equivalent of the character Addison DeWitt, the critic in All About Eve. Those who do not know this film can probably get by with knowing that he is the archetypal cynical, worldly, "runs with the wolves but has his own bite" vision of what a critic should be. Mr. DeWitt is jaded, but he knows what is good, and what is not.
It's a seductive idea, isn't it? It's tempting to believe in the notion that there is an intelligentsia which knows what is "good" literature, and what is "lesser" literature. It's a comfort to know the feeling that in the arts there is a "right" way, and a "wrong" way, and "major artists" and "minor artists". Never mind that the standards keep changing. Never mind that Hemingway has risen and fallen twice in my own short lifetime, although my entire lifetime has taken place after most of the critical interest in him had waned. Never mind that the rejuvenation of authors and artists seems to bear a strange synchronicity with the marketing of those artists and authors by major coporations publishing media works. If we cannot all believe in God, at least we can all believe in an aesthetic.
Ms. Biederman draws the fascinating conclusion that what we need is more poison-penned criticism--more "this is good" and "this is not". She feels that too much artistic criticism proves to be milquetoast cheerleading. I am sympathetic to the notion that anyone who reads or views or participates in the arts must have standards. I am also sympathetic to the notion that some artistic expression is better than other artistic expressions. But I wonder if we have not moved beyond a time such a meaningful "definition of standards" can take place.
Let's first say that it does not take too much research to lead one to question if American criticism has ever been anything but an elitist's game. Too many books and arts reviews have been written by insiders, in some cases friends of the writer or artist. But let's pass over the venality of people, for a moment, and look instead at what is the desired ideal.
I urge the position that the problem with arts criticism, and the crisis of the arts in general, arises because too much effort has been made to define a single vision of what the arts should be, minimizing the critic and the artist. The radical changes in the visual arts during the time period 1880 through 1980 taught us that so many assumptions we made about what art might be, whom it should motivate, and how it should be enjoyed, were just so limited. The result was that visual art was de-calcified, and new eyes could see new visions in new ways.
I am attracted to, and dabble in, the concepts inherent in the mail art movement. Like many people, I believed in those concepts before I knew what mail art was, and then was surprised and pleased to find a movement already existed with which I could so largely agree. The portion of mail art notions which resonate for me are the ideas of "art without judgment". I do not claim to speak for mail art, so let me tell you what my own vision of "art without judgment" means:
a. each person defines his or her own aesthetic, but goes the extra mile by also according full liberty to do so to each other person;
b. art is no longer the province of the museum or the gallery, but is instead the province of each person who wishes to participate in it or view it;
c. art no longer depends on the engines of commerce and criticism to exist, but is created by people for their own enjoyment and the enjoyment of their friends; and
d. art is accordingly avocational, as it is too important to be something from which one must earn a living. If one must earn one's living by one's art, one owes one's daily bread to other people, with different aesthetics, who do not understand one's art. Accordingly,
one should always work at fields other than art, and do art as an avocation.
In my view, one does not reject any art, but instead filters the art which one wishes to see from the art which one does not wish to see. It's not a particularly radical notion.
There are no real rules, either. If one wishes to sell or buy art, then feel free. The notion that it should be avocational is not intended as a fetter, but as a liberation.
If one wishes to read an art review, or attend a curated show, or worship the same art gods that the magazines worship, then feel free. There are many wonderful artists in galleries, and museums are worthwhile places. In short, my view of art and literature is not about guilt, or rejecting corporations, or rejecting academia. Those things are merely corollary mild positives that can indirectly result from following this view of the world.
I love to write book reviews on Amazon.com. I like that any ordinary reader who can fill out a routine form can memorialize an opinion on a book. I notice something as well. When a book I am considering offers six formal newspaper or magazine book reviews, and six reader reviews, I will read the reader reviews and skip the formal reviews. It's true that of the six reader reviews, two might be two line blurbs with no meaning. But it's also usually true that one or two of the reader reviews will tell me things that will really help me assess whether I will like the book. Too often the magazine reviews just try to show me that the reviewer is well read. The process of building an aesthetic is just too time-consuming to permit the writer to actually say he or she did or did not enjoy the book, and why.
I'm not saying that I do not draw quality distinctions in my assessment of the arts. Shakespeare is superior to routine sitcoms. I do not believe that machine-made sentimental landscapes are the equivalent of Gainesborough. But I do believe that life is too full of richness for the way in which some people approach the arts. I drive down a street in eastern Los Angeles and see a great mural of the Virgin of Guadulupe. Do I really need to think about its place in the arts, and the cultural backstory? Can't I just say "neat mural"?
I am admittedly very much a middle-brow, but it does seem to me that we all spend too much time sorting and defining and trying to figure out how to earn money from the arts. We've created specialist schools, to which nobody belongs. Everybody has their own particular little niche, which is the Only Right Way. As a result, we are all frustrated, because the world is not at all like our own small true vision.
I believe that literature, arts, and music were meant to be first and foremost recreations.
The tribute to people is that their recreations can mean so much to them. We went to have a fun evening out, and we discovered that we could glimpse our souls, just a little. But now the arts are a matter of High Capitalism and an anachronistic set of almost gnostic cults of Higher Criticism.
The result is that I meet people who "can't be artists" because they cannot earn a living from the corporate machinery, and they can't win favor from academia. But I am troubled that these two false choices are what defines an artist. I am not an Anais Nin fan, but I am alwys intrigued by how much of her life was spent doing work that nobody cared a penny for, but which she knew was her own path. I believe that people would be better off if they decoupled art from money and art from fame.
I know that my position makes one spend one's work days doing something other than one's fondest dream. But I believe that it is better to earn a living at a job that pays, and do one's art avocationally, than it is to fail to earn a living at art, a job which rarely pays. I also believe that there are far more creative people than markets for creative work. What should those people do? I think they should all create for friends, for family, and for themselves. Will my notion create a market for art? I doubt it. But will it create a salve for the immense frustration that people feel? I think so.
I guess I do not believe that Fate requires so many people to feel that they "must" be entitled to earn a living in the arts. Instead, Fate has an odd way of not seeming to support most artists at all. I do not know of any scripture where it is written that artists "should" be entitled to follow their dream. I do not know of any other calling in which market forces "should" be relaxed. The only way I can see to liberate oneself to follow one's dream is to liberate oneself from being dependent on art for money. One should earn one's money some other way.
What would the world lose if we had no art criticism? I'm not sure.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
There was already an art movement akin to what you suggest, it was called Dada, dadaism is dead. The reason for its demise is that just as in nature NOTHING is CREATED without a purpose, not art, not literature, NOTHING. I am sorry if I sound harsh or rude, but this is just too much, artists have been devalued enough in society (no, that is not via fate...it is via people who are unwilling to pay their friends for their hard work, people who undervalue those who are creative).
I am appalled by this post and your sentiments towards artists, it does however, make me want to charge any lawyer I encounter twice as much for any service rendered to even out the score a bit.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 12:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-27 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-27 08:32 am (UTC)hmmm
Date: 2002-12-26 12:11 pm (UTC)The thing here is, in the melodramatic opera version, the soul of the "starving artist" is destroyed. This is death, sung quietly or with streaming tears. For some people, achieving a role in the "corporate machinery" is just the thing that freezes their ability to make their art.
...Although I agree with the sentiment about mailart in that I enjoy making things FOR something/soneone or in exchange for something, regardless of money and often without knowing what I will receive in return. Some frustration with the lack of places to put my "art" once it's completed have driven me to mailart, nervousness, artomat, and the like.
But, besides being naive and truly believing that grand old adage money isn't everything, I think that the artists need to keep struggling. Sometimes frustration and melancholy drive us to do our best, and that is just the nature of it. There's no need to soothe the injured artist... if they are a true artist they will keep at what they NEED to do, no matter what economic or social pressures are present.
As for me personally, I pretty much do as you suggest in doing my art avocationally and never really expecting monetary gain or outer recognition. To me the biggest struggle forced apon me by economic concerns is just finding TIME and ENERGY to create. Because when you are earning a living at a job that pays (anything) it's difficult for that job to not become the central force in your life. And letting the job take over like that is a big mistake, in my opinion.
Re: hmmm
Date: 2002-12-26 12:28 pm (UTC)Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
Date: 2002-12-26 12:54 pm (UTC)But on our man G.'s point, I'd have to say that I long for some honest discourse on the arts. I often feel intimidated by the lack of a "good" or a "bad" or inability to say "like" and "dislike" when talking about art. I am often taken back to a time where bullies would often hang the label of "snitch" on me as a victim who dared to protest to an authority of ill treatment at their hands. But worse, when the label of "snitch" would be taken up by my fellows in oppression! I think we live very much in an intellectually dishonest time. A time of appeasement of the "bullies" of accepted art critique.
How rare when someone actually tells me they don't care for my art, and how grateful I am to hear it! How insulted I feel when people just say something bland or make a polite inquiry, or worse insist that I tell them what the art "really means". The lack of honesty is the first and insurmountable barrier to genuine exchange of ideas. And fellow artists are no exception. What are we afraid of?
Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Viva la Difference
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
From:Re: hmmm
Date: 2002-12-27 07:44 am (UTC)hmmmmmm
i come from an art history and art background... you bring up some interesting points, i'd like to add one: some artists are artists to the core, in such a way that they can't earn a living any other way... successful or not. this doesn't devalue your avocational art. some people are just born to go against the grain, ruin themselves and self-destruct. (of course there are successful artists as well, but then there is no reason for them to stop being artists if they are successful and enjoying it.) i don't think this is wrong (to go against the grain), or makes them bad people or irresponsible, it's just the way it is, although it's not particularly fair and can be quite sad. i can't remember who it was that said, it takes great courage to live a life, anyone's life. i think that's true.
as far as not judging art, i agree with much of what you said, although, i also think art criticism is an art all its own, which also needs to be free from judgements. you mentioned book reviews, i don't read too much into them but they are helpful. when i was in college, i avidly followed many movie reviews, and by getting to know certain critics (developing an intuition for his/her aesthetic? i believe might be in keeping with what you said), then i really could tell much more about the movies i might want to see, particularly those that weren't advertised readily any other way.
it is in this same spirit i read art criticism, i develop a taste for a few of critics, for certain reasons, and while they are off reviewing art for a living i can go about my business and check in with them periodically to get in touch with works of art i might not have otherwise been made aware of. amazon, livejournal, for instance, have formally and informally broadened my ability to do this, and made the process even more efficient.
btw, i've seen a lot about shakespeare recently -- bleh !!! (i've held that back too long !) i think so many modern day sitcoms are far superior to shakespeare !! i know yours is probably the more popular and educated view, and if that's your opinion, that's great. he just really has a negative impact on me.
oh one more point. art criticism has been claiming, along with different arts, that it is dying a painful death. it's not really going away, but it might be changing shape. my point is though that it is necessary (and therefore won't be going away in any hurry.) might not be part and partial to everything one does and its importance will vary according to one's lifestyle, but it helps suggest to people how to think critically about art, for better or worse. this adds to the enjoyment of art for many, including myself. just as knowing something about wine, grapes, and winemaking process enhances my ability to enjoy wine. i still only like what i like, and will continue to avoid what i don't like. but the knowledge will not only lead me to try new wines i might not have known of, but it allows me to speak in the vernacular and express my findings, or at the very least, to catalog in my mind reasons why i did and did not like particular wines. there are more necessary functions of criticism that might be of interest to the artist/winemaker as well.
the terminology, criticism, critic, has always suggested to some, a negative connotation. it's true that the job of the critic is to cover the good and the bad, but inherent in all critics is the appreciation for what they are critiquing. otherwise how could it hold their attention span? the problems/confusion come in when marketing tactics, mixed motives, appear, and maybe one genre or piece is exalted to the express exclusion of others, but that's the price we pay. no one would tell a winemaker to abandon standards in their winemaking, just as standards for making art should not be abandoned. standards for making art criticism should not be abandoned either... the thing is we all have different definitions of those standards.
Re: hmmmmmm
Date: 2002-12-26 07:30 pm (UTC)Re: hmmmmmm
Date: 2002-12-27 07:45 am (UTC)Thanks for sharing your comment.
continued...
my husband just asked me what i was doing... i said i'm writing a critique of Robert's critique of a critique on art criticism -- how's that for abstract !! which is more real, or true? the reflection created in a work of art, or the myriad reflections on that work? ;) ...
Re: continued...
Date: 2002-12-27 07:46 am (UTC)no subject
I must admit to still being baffled by this notion of yours that art "should be avocational." I just can't figure it out...are you saying there should be no dancers, writers, filmmakers, painters, musicians, sculptors who are to the very core of their being these things? What a sorry world we would live in if that were the case. Why should art be relegated to the three or four hours one has remaining in the day? Left overs. Why do you condemn everyone to a boring "day job?"
You seem so interested in "creative types" yet you really don't seem to understand where so many people are coming from.
We've debated art/not art before, and I think you know where I stand (behind the IDEA and the ultimate relevance of Art). I cannot abide this notion that art is that which someone calls "art." No. On the one hand, you seem to be advocating more stringent art criticism, willing to call the kettle black, and on the other you advocate art as a hobby, and only a hobby. That doesn't add up.
You can say "neat mural" all you want, but when you take the time to examine art within its myriad contexts, you know full well it becomes richer, more meaningful, more relevant. Why are you advocating a dumbing down of society? Aren't we dumb enough?
Anyone who has been enthralled with art and art history starts out saying, "neat mural" and then moves beyond that to find the ideas behind or underneath or on top of. I'm probably not coming off as very coherent, but there's a lot to say. I'd mention that you've struck a chord (you know that), but that would be a gross understatement.
I think of art like some think of pornography...I know it when I see it. But that is an informed opinion. Not the most informed but a lot more informed than many. Not just because I place such a high (non-monetary) value on art (which I do), but because I've spent a lot of time looking at it and thinking about it. It's not about what I "like;" it's about what I find meaningful and relevant. Creating meaning and relevance is the most important vocation. And should not be sidelined to after dinner.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-27 07:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re:
From:in re opera houses
From:Re: in re opera houses
From:Re: in re opera houses
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 01:06 pm (UTC)However, as a writer, I can maybe equalize the two ideas (writing and what I call visual art). I paint with words, you see.
As for professional critics (of any kind- visual art, literature, whatever), I have no use for them. I don't value their opinions, and rarely read a review or comments from them. I can't make myself believe that there is someone who KNOWS what art is, or literature is, that is wise enough to tell me. In doing so, they are removing all engagement between the piece and me. I also know, insider's view, that many critics just say what they think, and eventually people begin to believe that the person really KNOWS something more than they general public. And frankly, the artist is the only person I wish to hear tell me how good or bad their work is, what it means and what they are trying to convey through it.
As for making a living at a creative endeavor, I think if I can do what I love and then make a living as well, that's great. If I can't I need to find some other way to keep myself in the manner to which I choose to live. Should someone offer me money (a grant?) to do what I love? Only if they are willing to lose the money in the end. Should I have the freedom to bitch because I can't earn a living doing the art? Not really, as it would be a choice I make.
But, if I may be so bold as to try to understand what Robert is saying, I think art exists because the artist has something to say. Not to make money. Not to become a profession. Only to release something that is pent up inside the person- something they wish to share with the world.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 01:30 pm (UTC)i agree an individual is a channel for art, may become quite familiar with an overwhelming feeling to express art, but art is greater than the artist, and does not exist solely because of the artist.
Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re: Greens
From:Re:
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2002-12-27 07:48 am (UTC)If one can make a living, great, and preferable. But if one can't, one should not self-exclude oneself from being an "artist" or "writer" based on market pressures.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 01:43 pm (UTC)Most artists I know live on money not made as artists. But that still doesn't prevent me from considering them artists - or buying their art.
There is a wide variety of art shown in SF convention art shows - from young artists begining to sell prints (for $8 or so) to cover artists whose work appears on Arthur Clarke novels and the originals are in the $10K range. Still some of those young artists will become cover artists.
I don't know that SF (or other cover) art is considered for art criticism, though. It's likely too low brow. But people do still make their living at it.
On the other hand, re. publishing negative reviews - I know people who say why bother? There is so much being made that there is enough to be positive about, why discuss the negative. Also some papers do not want to publish negative reviews.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 07:28 pm (UTC)The reason why most papers, magazines, etc. won't publish negative reviews is because most positive reviews are "bought." I know nothing about art reviews, but I am very familiar with music reviews. If you want to get reviewed in many large magazines, the only way to get a review is by advertising, which is a essentially a form of bribery. Reviews in many magazines are all positive because they have all been bought. There are no negative reviews because they are obviously not going to give a negative review to someone who is paying for a good review.
(no subject)
From:Re:
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2002-12-27 07:49 am (UTC)Constructive criticism?
Date: 2002-12-27 11:24 pm (UTC)In the past, reviewing music, I found there was more likelihood of publication if the review was positive, particularly as more often than not tickets to gigs or copies of cds were 'freebies' from the record company. I did not allow this to influence my opinion or my choice of words in my review, although being provided with these aural opportunities at no cost made me listen more openly to things I might otherwise not have 'switched on' to. This, to my mind, is about accessibility. But it is also a patronage of the reviewer as artist? There are few of us untouched by the mechanics of a fiscal-based society in western civilisation.
Re: Constructive criticism?
From:Re: Constructive criticism?
From:Re: Constructive criticism?
From:Re: Constructive criticism?
From:Re: Constructive criticism?
From:Four cents?
Date: 2002-12-27 11:49 pm (UTC)Secondly, I think an important thing to remember is that while, as you quote Henry Van Dyke as saying, "Culture is the habit of being pleased with the best and knowing why", what constitutes the best is a personal affair, and differs from body to body. Any review is only a result of that reviewer's influences and reactions, based upon their education, experience and other variables. You can take it or leave it. Perhaps culture is simply being in touch with your own tastes, whether they are considered more widely as bad or good? And that is not to define 'indiscriminate' necessarily as having no taste, either : )
Also, within the comments, there was mention of an art-pornography allegory. Perhaps some of your readers might be interested in this: http://www.atavar.com/intimacy/ . I may have referred some of you to this before. I find it quite thought-provoking although perhaps not a great literary work (there, that's my pocket review!).
Lastly, my own question in response to the question you ended your post on, Robert. A world without art criticism would be an nonjudgmental world, unless other things in life were still critiqued and reviewed based on individual or organisational perspectives? And if that were the case, that only art was not reviewed, where would the forum for art appreciation be? Would art disappear up its own backside?
Contemplating these possibilities as well as my own navel...
six or eight, as you please
Date: 2002-12-28 05:51 am (UTC)My post was about trying to liberate one's view of oneself as an artist from the marketplace.
In the process, though, I mistakenly suggested that being a professional or vocational artist was a lesser thing, which was not well thought out. I think that people should be free and easy with selling into the market if the market would buy. But I don't think that art is about the market, and I think art will survive art criticism.
free at last
Date: 2002-12-31 04:36 pm (UTC)the function of the art critic would be to cull the weak, so the strong can make money? malthusian art criticism.
i don't think everybody has what it takes to make good art, and in this category i include high art and low art and outsider art.
i don't think people who make art are entitled to make a living at it.
it's the entitlement and whining that infuriates me. you do not have the absolute right to flood my public space with your shitty ...fill in the blank....oh, let's just say performance art, or a poem without any standards, even of chaos and nihilism...just detumescent schlock, and then demand that i look and pay. i mean, it's turned into the gong show. at least i could turn that off.
i read this year finally a good bio of the critic clement greenberg, who "discovered" jackson pollock. he worked his tail off and he was correct. he had a lot of other problems, as did pollock, but there are arbiters of taste who do have the golden eye and greenberg was one of them.
in terms of museumization and arbiters of taste -- these are legitimate butts of derision. arbiters of Taste like berenson or duveen are all about selling plausible paintings to very rich guys. i realized this once when i saw some rich guy's entire collection of paintings, which had been billed to him by duveen or berenson or both as "transitional" or "seminal" baby cubist paintings of picasso/braque....it was crap. all of it.
i want to live in a society where everybody plays the guitar, dances, makes pottery, weaves and paints. but then i'd probably have to carry water six miles every day.
but i really am tired of no talent MTV wannabes -- worse, people who want to be porn stars or rock stars (can you sing????? can you fuck??????) -- telling me they have a right to express themselves and make money at it.
thanks. i feel better already.
Re: free at last
Date: 2002-12-31 04:54 pm (UTC)Re: free at last
From:Re: free at last
From:Re: free at last
From:Re: free at last
From:Re: free at last
From:Re: free at last
From: