A critic has a crucial role in the art world. Critics, well some critics, are deemed as appropriate figures to raise questions and give opinions on work. Critics are not reporters, they don’t simply document a gallery opening or a specific piece of work, and they challenge the artist and themselves about the emotional and aesthetic value of the art. They are authoritative figures that are knowledgeable; they can draw connections between the work and art history, current artist’s work, different genres of work, cultural significance etc. Many photographers use history and previous art to inspire their photographs, such as Jeff Wall's "Dead Troops Talk" (http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm8_dead_troops_lrg.jpg) This image directly references the Iraq war so the critic now has a direct reference to work from as well as their own connections to refer. Proper critics don’t make unwarranted pronouncements based solely on opinion and bias; they raise questions and make defendable arguments. Critics may ask questions that they themselves are still unsure or maybe having a strong opinion they want others to contemplate and come to their own conclusion. Critics use past knowledge and descriptive text to defend arguments they have made but must always be within the context of the image. A critic’s argument should be supported by internal information within the image and external sources beyond the image, therefore the argument should be convincing.
Accuracy is very important in art criticism, for what is documented today will eventually become a part of art history. Accuracy in description and references are essential to a critique. A critic must then contemplate how they wish to address the artist (photographer), what is the relationship? One must be weary of becoming too close for it may sway what is or isn’t criticized about the work, but then again by not including the artist’s input as research material the critic can miss out on many valid arguments and perspectives. The relationship between the artist and the critic will always be one in the grey zone. It comes down to how the critic wishes to carry out the relationship and how much is revealed or concealed within the critique.
However, this is not to say that a critic’s argument should always be un-bias. In fact it is the opposite. The argument will always be bias, based on the personal experiences of that critic, everything is cumulative. Often description and opinion of work are laced together. Some critics keep the description and opinion separate within the critique. What is the most convincing? This is hard to say, in the end it all comes down to even more personal opinion and how the critic wishes to address their point, and what they believe to be most convincing.
Criticism and art are inseparable. As long as there is art and an interested audience, whether art that appeals or not appeals to an audience there will always be people to judge it. Personally I find criticism valuable, in all art related situations, there is something to be gained from both negative and positive feedback. In a school setting an artist is faced with a mutual criticism from peers, one that is aimed at benefiting the work and work to come. Criticism in a school setting also promotes the development of a language that can best articulate the viewer’s thoughts on a particular piece. Criticism on a larger scale is one that does not aim at a mutual goal, rather becomes a more occupational and personal mission.
Criticism, whether positive or negative, is always beneficial to an artist and the artistic community. For starters, on a very elementary level criticism is the acknowledgment of work; to be distinguished from all other’s is to be considered worth the time to analyze it, this is fundamental. An artist’s work essentially strives to reach the viewer on some emotional level, when a critic of any sort acknowledges a work/body of work they admit to some kind of metaphysical stimulation. Whether the critic is stimulated in a good or bad way is irrelevant, the fact is the artist achieved in creating a sensation that transcended the physical attributes of the piece and enabled the viewer to contemplate their own emotional response. In any case this is no doubt a victory.
With this in mind it seems a bit trivial to breakdown the categories of criticism, however once passed the point of satisfaction of reaching viewer’s emotionally it is important to analyze the critique. Undertaking the responsibility to examine the audience’s response is crucial for artists, after all it is their creation that spawned their reaction the work, and an artist should be aware of how the masses relate to their work as a whole. An artist should analyze what the critics have analyzed from their work. This may have awakened a new realization in the artist that could have been unintentional and/or subconscious but enhance or even detract from what the artist was trying to portray. In some cases the audience may have perceived and entirely different message and the impact could be phenomenal or miniscule, in either case it the artist’s responsibility to know how their work is affecting the masses. An artist should examine criticism as a way of achieving their technique, style, aesthetic, etc. and creating a more effective way of purposely representing the artist’s direct or ambiguous point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment