Why I Hate Art Critics
I've recently starting a subscription to various Art Periodicals.Not going to name any as I don't want to be advertising for any of them. These magazines are written by ao called Art Critics and Art Journalists. I hate these people. Why do I buy them then? So I can keep up with what is being created by other likeminded people across the globe... I don't have to 'read' the crap about them.
Ok for some explanation I am going to go back to my degree show many years ago and try not to start ranting! What I created would be classed as an installation, it was contained on 4 walls in a small purpose built space with an area for entering and exiting. Two facing walls contained scupltures and the other two contained text. I am not going to try and describe the piece in more detail and I wish I still had photographs but I have neither those nor the work.
During the course of this exhibition 100s of people went in and out of my 'room' and either liked the work or disliked it. But only 1 person truly understood it (other than me). This person was a young female who went into my space and stood completely and utterly immersed in the peice both physically (being in the space) and I believe emotionally. I spoke to them afterwards and felt only then that I had truly made a piece of Art.
All Art is or at least should be emotional. If you feel nothing as you create the work then it is worthless. (in my opinion) The goal then is to make other people feel the same thing when they view the work. For an 'Art Critic' to look at the piece and talk for hours about the meaning of the work is pointless and has no merit if they do not feel emotional about the piece. Ok I do enjoy the fact that some people may like it purely from an aesthetical perspective. But unless the person can truly feel the same emotions as the artist then they should not be trying to write about it; as how ever many pages of post-modern or existentialist claptrap will never truly reveal anything meaningful about the work. So there you go... the reason I hate critics.
For me the only people who should critique work are the artist themsleves and anyone who can feel the work in that same way such as the person in my ramble above. What we should be doing is allowing people to write their thoughts as they view art and use this as a basis for any critique, maybe give people dictaphones as they walk around galleries so that they can talk about what they are seeing and how they feel.
Anything than these stuck up people who just happen to know a lot of long words to describe why that black line on a 50ft canvas is sooooo important.
End rant - thanks for listening.
Ok for some explanation I am going to go back to my degree show many years ago and try not to start ranting! What I created would be classed as an installation, it was contained on 4 walls in a small purpose built space with an area for entering and exiting. Two facing walls contained scupltures and the other two contained text. I am not going to try and describe the piece in more detail and I wish I still had photographs but I have neither those nor the work.
During the course of this exhibition 100s of people went in and out of my 'room' and either liked the work or disliked it. But only 1 person truly understood it (other than me). This person was a young female who went into my space and stood completely and utterly immersed in the peice both physically (being in the space) and I believe emotionally. I spoke to them afterwards and felt only then that I had truly made a piece of Art.
All Art is or at least should be emotional. If you feel nothing as you create the work then it is worthless. (in my opinion) The goal then is to make other people feel the same thing when they view the work. For an 'Art Critic' to look at the piece and talk for hours about the meaning of the work is pointless and has no merit if they do not feel emotional about the piece. Ok I do enjoy the fact that some people may like it purely from an aesthetical perspective. But unless the person can truly feel the same emotions as the artist then they should not be trying to write about it; as how ever many pages of post-modern or existentialist claptrap will never truly reveal anything meaningful about the work. So there you go... the reason I hate critics.
For me the only people who should critique work are the artist themsleves and anyone who can feel the work in that same way such as the person in my ramble above. What we should be doing is allowing people to write their thoughts as they view art and use this as a basis for any critique, maybe give people dictaphones as they walk around galleries so that they can talk about what they are seeing and how they feel.
Anything than these stuck up people who just happen to know a lot of long words to describe why that black line on a 50ft canvas is sooooo important.
End rant - thanks for listening.
posted by Caileus at 1:36 PM
1 Comments:
So does the emotional response have to be the same as the artists to make any comments valid? Or maybe I just missed your point. I think I understand you, in that what your saying is; if an art critic rote about piece in technical terms followed by a description of their emotional response and finally their subjective opinion - like or dislike - then their comments would be OK. Whereas what you find in practice is, that art critics talk endlessly about what they think the artists' emotional involvement with a piece was without ever engaging with the work themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home