Great article!
-
I used to be an art critic for a Belgian newspaper, and ever since, I know some people do not know what art criticism is about. If you are one of those people, The Guardian's Jonathan Jones spells it out for you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/jun/25/art-criticism-jonathan-jones
-
Stinkie
Intersting reading indeed, I especially enjoyed the comments.
Personally I feel JJ is a hack and his opinions are worthless as they do not come bundled with reason, at least my opinion is more than just " Feeling it in my bones".So have you responded there?, there are a few responses that sound so much like your rhetoric.
-
@solo said:
Personally I feel JJ is a hack and his opinions are worthless as they do not come bundled with reason
Ah, but ultimately art criticism is merely about personal taste. (Though I'd put more stock in Robert Hughes's taste than in, say, my dad's - who couldn't tell a Cézanne and a Matisse apart.) I like a critic who doesn't try to dress that fact up with pseudo objectivity (I've had of enough of that in art history class, thank you) or, worse, pounds his readers into submission with a cascade of Barthes/Lacan/Zizek references (enough of that in art philosophy class
). Hell, he needn't even share my views. Better yet - I love that!@solo said:
So have you responded there?, there are a few responses that sound so much like your rhetoric.
No - I'm modeling. First things first.
-
I am definitely not an art expert,but I do like to think about art as it is good fun and it sharpens the mind.
Off course criticism isn't democracy. It is an opinion.
I can understand his reasoning that sometimes 'a gut feeling' tells you that something is good. You can't always explain it at first, but in my opinion, you always can figure out the why later on when it starts to grow on you.
I have the same with good Jazz. Some pieces might feel over complex but you can feel that it is just right and after that 5th time listening, you get to understand why it is that damn good. The subtlty of a recurring theme etc..
An art critic should be able to put that 'gut feeling' into words. If he can't, he should let it ripe before commenting.I do think the following line in the article is weak reasoning:
'The shortlist I have co-selected as a judge of the 2009 Turner prize has been unusually well-received, so say what you like, my taste in new art is apparently pretty good.'
An art critic is not in the position to criticise himself. And it is not because something is 'well received' that it is good criticism. Received by who? For what reason? etc...
Also the fact that someone feels the need to attract attention to himself by saying how good he thinks he is makes me somewhat suspicious.
I can take such an attitude from an artist, but not from the art critic.So yeah, criticism isn't democracy, but criticising your own criticism? No , thank you.
-
He doesn't like Banksy? That's a dead give-away that he knows nothing...
-
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, become teachers.
Those who can't become teachers, become critics...
It's easy to carp and snipe at others efforts, especially when you yourself haven't made anything worthwhile...
[and he does look like a twat] -
@jackson said:
Dont' take this as a flame Stinkie
Oh, I don't. And I agree with most of what you wrote.
You must realise, though, my perspective is, well, a Flemish one. I positively envy youy Brits for having art critics who have an opinion - amongst ours that's a rare trait. Most of them simply elaborate on the artist's press releases. (You can take my word for that.) Oh, how I long for Flemish critics with both brains and balls! And a good pen, obviously.
@tig said:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, become teachers.
Those who can't become teachers, become critics...It's easy to carp and snipe at others efforts, especially when you yourself haven't made anything worthwhile...
I'm sorry, but this is populistic humbug. Read Hughes' "Nothing If Not Critical", or Kael's "I Lost It At The Movies".
-
@unknownuser said:
I'm sorry, but this is populistic humbug. Read Hughes' "Nothing If Not Critical", or Kael's "I Lost It At The Movies".
G.H. Hardy didnt think so.
-
Opinion is free, obviously. Nonetheless - critical writing, or whatever it's called in Eengleesh, is quite a valid genre.
Do read 'Nothing If Not Critical' - I cannot say I agree with everything Hughes says, not even close, but I did thorougly enjoy the essays collected in that book.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion... However, claiming that your opinion is somehow more valid than others needs some serious backup - which I think is lacking here...
-
"I know nothing about art but I know what I like..."
-
"I know everything about art and I know what I like..."
Who has the more valid opinion - surely it depends on how your quantify / measure it - clearly the first guy thinks he's right and so does the second... Each will measure against their own yardsticks and get no further... Only when we have some sort of consensus can a group opinion become valid ? One man's opinion is only one opinion - nothing more, nothing less... Don't be told what is right or wrong - find out and decide these things for yourself. 'Critics' are just like the guy in the bar who tells you the latest film he saw yesterday was 'great' - but you won't know till you go see it for yourself...
-
-
Yep, I don't buy it either. He claims "if nothing is properly criticised, mediocrity triumphs."- how true (and how bloody obvious too), but combined with the rest of his article this implies that "mediocrity" is worse than "bad". What a stupid, uniquely late 20th/early 21st century notion.
Criticism is inevitably subjective, but that doesn't mean a critic shouldn't strive to be objective. Objectivity is developed through knowledge and analysis of a field and a good critic should be able to identify and observe trends and patterns and develop his/her opinions based on them. If I wanted gut-instinct subjectivity I'd ask a taxi driver or my Uncle Rab rather than buy a newspaper who pay the wages of self-proclaimed critics.
Nevertheless, gut-instinct can absolutely be relevant in criticism. I am about 95% certain that even if I knew nothing about art, had never been in a gallery, never seen a painting, and knew nothing of artists' lives or historical importance I would still have stood, captivated for 15 minutes in front of van Gogh's painting of an olive orchard in the garden of a psychiatric hospital he was committed to, when I saw it at an exhibition a couple of years ago. Of course you could analyse it, but it pretty much transcends critique- it was just breathtaking. When friends asked what I thought of the exhibition, to see if it was worth the queues, the crowds and the entry fee my reply couldn't have been more subjective: "Just go and see it, it's fantastic."
What's the point of that article anyway? It sounds like this geezer is an old-enough-to-know-better example of the "keeping it real" generation i.e. "Yeah, I might be an arrogant @rse, but that's just the way I am. At least I'm keeping it real!" Yep... real dumb.
Don't take this as a flame Stinkie, as an ex-critic yourself I'm not having a go at you or your peers, I just don't like this guy's stance.
BTW I think his portrait at the top of the article gives him away as an arrogant,
self-important tosser... you can almost smell the "smug". How's that for subjectivity? LOL
Advertisement