The Art of Art Criticism

One change I've noted in art reviews over the years is that critics will often forgo judging the art in favor of describing it on its own terms.  One reason for this change may be that art is so eclectic today.  There is no single school or style in ascendancy.

There is also no universal authority on what is good or bad art, but rather arguments being made for the value of a particular artist's work within the parameters of what that artist is trying to accomplish.  Yet critics have personal tastes, and will naturally tend to promote the art they love and dismiss what they consider trivial.

One of the tools many critics use is context.  They attempt to place the art within its cultural history, explaining the influences it has come out of and relating it to other contemporaries working in a similar mode.  If an artist is making folk-art, for example, the work needs to be discussed in that context, not compared to a video installation.

I know that I am absolutely prejudiced in favor of non-objective abstract art, because it's the kind of art I make and have a continuing relationship with.  I tend to look at all art from this perspective, noting its painterly effects, the interest of its surface, the movement and composition, its force, energy, and so forth.

I have no aspirations to be an art critic, especially knowing how prejudiced I am toward abstract art.  I can appreciate other art for its craftsmanship, cleverness or emotional impact, but I tend to always judge first by squinting to check out the composition.

Another aspect of art reviewing is audience.  When writing for a national or international art publication, critics will be considering the value of the art based on a larger playing field than a writer for a regional or small city publication.  Yet even in a small city, some of the artists who live there may be as serious about their work as an artist competing in New York City or London.  They may appreciate a reviewer who can put their work in a larger context.  The reader of a small newspaper, however, may simply want to know what a local show is about, and in that case a descriptive review would be more helpful than a judgmental one.

If one has to choose between looking at more art or reading more art reviews, I vote for looking at more art.  I think we will learn more through our visual processing of the art, and the words to describe this experience can come later. 

Comments

[Lesly]

Hallo Lynne

what an excellent post ... I agree wholeheartedly with everything in it. You have encapsulated my own thoughts on the subject exactly ... except that you have put it far better than I ever could.

thank you.

[Arthur Whitman]

Thank you for your thoughts on the state of art criticism. I agree with your points on context, audience and personal taste. What the critic should do about all of this is a more complicated question.

Thanks as well for such a cogent summary of your artistic values. Personally, I most value art that works at different levels: formal, symbolic, narative, expressive, and so on.

[Martha Marshall]

Lynne, your criteria when looking at art apply to realism just as much as they do to abstract art, don't you think?

Great post!

[Lynne Taetzsch]

Yes, Martha, I agree that the elements I look for in abstract art need to be present in realism as well.

Everyone, please note Stan Bowman's response to Arthur Whitman's criticism on my previous post. I like Stan's comment that he has to be true to his art, rather than worrying about what a particular critic or any other viewer sees in it.

[Nancy Geyer]

Lynne,

I agree with much of what you say up to the last three sentences, which I find puzzling.

As you know, we in Ithaca don't have to choose between looking at more art and reading more art reviews; we hardly have much in the way of the latter. You might find one or two reviews a month in the Ithaca Times. The Journal's articles are more of the publicity variety.

My experience, in talking to many artists and gallery directors and gallery goers, is that people in our community would like more critical reviews -- many more. This type of writing is essential if we are to have a truly vibrant arts scene (this is as true of a small city as it is of a much larger one). Writing and art are intricately entwined. As much as we experience art in a nonverbal way, we are also very influenced -- not to mention energized -- by the conversations we have about it. (This does not mean, of course, that we can't look at an exhibit first and read a review later, after we've had time to do our visual processing.)

I think many people would disagree that just because they live in a small community like Ithaca they would prefer, or benefit from, articles that are primarily descriptive. In any case, most art reviews are simultaneously descriptive and critical, in the best sense of that word (and, yes, judgment does play a part). Passionate reviews, whether mostly positive or mostly negative, will get more people into galleries than merely descriptive reviews ever will. And, subjective and sometimes wrong-headed though they are, reviews give artists feedback that might be valuable, should they want it. (Stan Bowman is right, of course, that an artist needs to be "true to his art" and not be preoccupied with critics and viewers -- that's the ideal, anyway.)

[Lynne Taetzsch]

Nancy,

Thanks for adding to this discussion and pointing out that Ithaca needs more attention to be paid to visual art in our local newspapers, including critical reviews. I'm glad Arthur is writing about art here and wish there were more space allotted to and money devoted to paying reviewers so that we could have a larger conversation.

Obviously I think talking about art is important, or I wouldn't be writing this blog. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the visual experience with the art is different from and more important than the conceptualization of that experience in words. That's why I said, if there were a choice, look at more art. If we can have both, great.

[xgaiqk uvqzewxm]

tdfnbas ikqrv firpqayjn xcvrmwn norhdjq zwukgx otan