Artsramble Archive

When I say "criticism" these are the things I don't mean: ridicule, pronouncement, gossip about the "art scene," promotion, destruction, lecturing from the ivory tower, pontificating, dropping dead men's names, and hearing oneself speak.

My notion of criticism was learned in art school, from the teachers who seemed to be able to share eyes with the student, see all the trials, errors and rare successful passage that foretold the artist this student would become. A critique was not just a process of opinion. It was taking the journey of each painting, footstep by Footstep, underpainting by stroke by slash and scumble. They taught us to verbalize the visual, because the best of them knew how to do just this.

It was also informed, as it evolved and sharpened, by my husband, Joe, a film critic. Joe has been resisting the trendy, self-congratulatory schools of academic criticism for decades. Many times, the criticism became the "art" in the critic's eyes, and the art which generated the writing became only that: a springboard into more lofty thinking. At the same time, Joe decried the state of much of the popular arts writing–facile, glib, afraid to scratch the surface for fear of sounding too much the pompous prof of culture. My husband is sure there is a middle ground, not a mediocrity, mind you, but an approach that combines the best and delivers valuable reading. Again, it's reflected in his teaching. He has dumped the classic lecture style for the Socratic model. The students know the answers deep within themselves and a good teacher not only scratches that surface, but will do dialectic open-heart surgery, until the juices roil and the brain surrenders that wonderful intangible: The Idea.

What I would hope for in a critic is a writer who is familiar with creative process; who him/herself is creative; who is versed in the history of art, history of the artist being discussed and generally the state of the world. That's for starters. The critic's readers include the art initiated and the non-art public. Some writers seem to make a choice and write for one or the other; but I respect the writers that choose to bridge the gap. Here's the point. A critic should be offering accessible but non-condescending prose centering on why an artist does what he does, rather than telling an artist what she should be doing. If the critic is able to write well about the "why", then assessments of how successfully the artist did it seem perfectly fair. It's really that simple. It is really that complicated.

although I wrote an email…
Michelle Natal is the kind of
critic this area needs. We are
lucky to have her to balance the
“journalists” that abound
2. Tom Starland Says:
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am e

My question is - where do these perfect souls come from - heaven, purgatory or hell?

In my experience, everybody says they want critical review, but I wonder if they really do. It’s not easy to take or dish up. It’s not easy to take it from someone you don’t know and worse from someone you do know. It’s not easy to give either and live in the same community with the artists being reviewed.

I tend to put reviews into different categories: reviews that only describe the exhibit; reviews that describe only what the reviewer likes; reviews that describe only what the reviewer dislikes; reviews that substitute for an assassination; reviews that substitute for an invitation for a date; reviews that substitute for future job applications; reviews that inform; reviews that are reviews of those presenting the exhibit - not the artworks presented; reviews that are some of all of the above and review that are none of the above.

Where do we find the perfect people who can provide all of the things artists and exhibit presenters say they want? They are not in ready supply.

I have seen that art reviewers tend to be either hated or loved by members of the art community, but rarely respected.

If an artist from within a community steps up to provide such a service, their friends will exert so much pressure on them to be their next subject. And, if the review is not to their liking - you can only guess what the next meeting will be like. Eventually you won’t know who your friends are. They’ll all smile to your face and compliments will flow, but what do they say behind your back?

If the reviewer is a good writer first and a lover of art second - people who are on the wrong end of a review will always question their art credentials.

You have to ask yourself why anyone would want to be in the position of reviewing art.

Not knowing the answer, I wonder how many college and university art departments in the Carolinas offer a degree in Critical Review? And, if they did - how many jobs would there be out there for them? Could you make a living at it? Do these institutions make sure the students are exposed to the commercial side of the arts?

But, I have to go back to the question - is critical review what artists and exhibit presenters want? And, do they both want the same things? Are they willing to accept what is given?

Do the artists want a “public” breakdown of their artistic progress or lack of such. Do they want support, encouragement, praise, recognition, or flattery? Do they want to be told they are lost in a sea of mediocrity or headed on the righteous path of creativity? Do they want someone to rank them among their peers? Or do they just want people to come see their art and make up their own minds?

Do exhibit presenters want reviews to generate visitations to the gallery to see current shows or for future shows based on their high level of art presentations? Do they want reviews that will support sales of artworks? Do they want support, encouragement, praise, recognition, or flattery? Do they want someone to rank them among their peers? Do they want reviews to inform and educate, generating expanded viewership? Do they want someone telling readers to not bother to see this exhibit - it’s the same as the one presented last year? Or do they just want people to come see their art and make up their own minds?

Do they both want reviews, previews, endorsements, or free advertisements? You have to wonder.

Should all be reviewed? Should their be a list where once you have been reviewed that the reviewer doesn’t come around to you until all others are reviewed? Or should only significant shows be reviewed? Should just nonprofit institutions be reviewed or should commercial galleries be included? What mix should there be? Who makes that list? Should the media coordinate reviews so they don’t all offer reviews of the same things at once? What if the reviewer only likes certain kinds of art? Should they be allowed to review art they don’t like to begin with? What kind of reviews can you expect from such a person? Should there be a professional reviewer’s network set up that all media can draw from? The questions are endless.

Is there an alternative to the traditional “public” critical review that can provide the things artists and exhibit presenters say they want? Should we look for that alternative or try and fix a process that many are not happy with?

And, if you know of any of these perfect people, could you tell them we’re interested in talking to them?

I once asked a reviewer to go see a certain show. They told me they hated those people. I said then you better not go there and besides the harshest review you can do is to do no review at all. It’s like your mother said - If you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all. Was that good motherly advice?

It would seem to me that if an artist or exhibit presenter wanted such critical review of their actions, the best way to go about it is to develop a peer group which you respect to provide such review. Do it privately and keep an open mind. Why ask for public discourse, unless what you really want is publicity - and we know all publicity is good. Or is it?
3. Peggy Payne Says:
July 21st, 2006 at 3:32 pm e

I’m convinced publicity is good. And strong feelings — pro or con. Whatever draws attention to the work. Then when people know about it, they can decide for themselves

All work on this site © 2004 by Andrea Gomez, all rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, republishing, posting or duplication of any of the material on the web site is prohibited without express written permission from Andrea Gomez. The artist reserves to herself all rights of reproduction and all copyright of her work.