I went to a Thinkfest talk at the Grahamstown Festival about Critics and Criticism and they role they play in the creative process. The talk was held with writing and visual arts (performance, installation, painting/drawing, sculpture, dance, theater, music, writing) in mind.
I had a number of questions:
How can a critic get into the head of the creator (of the work, picture, movie, etc.) to make a comment about the work of the artist? On what grounds do they then evaluate it? How honest is their evaluation? Is it contextualized? What makes them think they are part of the creative process?
If you give a critique in terms of what has gone before with special reference to genre, style, medium, context, and so on, and with other artists in mind, it is like trying to solve a problem from the problem's point of view, not from a solution point of view, or from a novel, or innovative point of view.
Often newspapers or magazines, and especially the publishing houses, do not want to print.critiques if they are not favorable - the product will not sell, and they also do not want to be seen to have taken sides. So it is watered down to a more palatable level.
On the other hand some critics critique others' work to blow their own trumpet, to show off their expertise; how knowledgeable they are about their field. They slate the artist, but are unable to produce anything of value, except criticize and denigrate other peoples work, without having the slightest idea where the person is coming from, what their ideas are, how they got to the point they're at, nor what process they followed to get there. They comment on work out of context, using academic descriptions and categorization, as though they have the sole proprietorship to know what "art" has merit and whether it is "good" or not. (As long as "good art" adheres to known and popular culture, within the academic sphere, of course.)
In my opinion critics are merely very subjective feedback mechanisms. Artists may or may not respond to these comments and may or may not adjust their work to accommodate the "current world view". You will find as many responses to the artworks as there are people. Some critics will be more in touch with what the general public want, what the more avant garde want, or what will one day be considered "great art". Some critics will have a greater vocabulary to dash artists attempts, others will use it wisely tempered with knowing what effect they will have on the person's life and future.
These are good points. And subjectivity is the key issue. Secondary issues are perhaps around sales, marketing and other commercial objectives. Critics do have a role to play in bringing to public attention art that might not be noticed in the plethora. Perhaps one should identify those critics whose taste is closest to one's own and give less credibility to those one doesn't have much in common with?
ReplyDelete