Pardon me everyone to come across with this interruptive out of schedule post but something struck my head today and I just can’t shut up!!!
For the readers here just have to put up with my insanity, thank you very much! Pleasure!
Why do we need criticism?
Let’s say, look at the following picture, forgetting it’s a photograph:
Now one would look at it and say: I like or I don’t like! and…why shouldn’t that be enough depending on personal taste?
Or should One say: I think the colour of the flowers is not appealing enough. Mothernature should be more careful when making them as they don’t match accordingly in size and leave me feeling melancholic.
Should Mothernature get all pissed of about One’s opinion and start making these flowers exactly square and pink?
What about the rest of the population of the world? Would their opinion matters to Mothernature too?
What if One is a critic and say the flowers are the most compelling beautiful art in the world, is everyone going to rush to buy some?
Hey Angela,
You say, “look at the following picture, forgetting it’s a photograph.” Great to see you working with another medium. Anyway, I’ll try to ignore that it is a photograph. I guess that means I should imagine I am there with the real flowers. I think if I were planning my garden, I would want to judge if I liked the flowers or not before planting them. There are many plants in nature that I would not want in the garden. You could call that criticism, but I see it as practical.
“Isn’t Criticism a ridiculous stupidity?” Maybe that is a bit too broad a statement (posing as a question?) That is not to say that criticism is always useful. As an artist, it depends where you are in your work, and who is criticizing. If you are asking, “Is listening to Criticism at the wrong moment, or from the wrong person a ridiculous stupidity?” then I would say “Yes!” I think it is important to believe in yourself as an artist, especially at those moments when someone looking at the work in progress would tear it down with criticism. I guess it is also important to realize that at vulnerable moments in the creative process, it can help self-belief to avoid getting criticism. This is not to advocate living in a fantasy world all the time — only some of the time . . . That’s what being an artist is about, I think. Or is that a misconception?
Angela,
Great question that made me think…
Criticism served up by a well meaning individual who understands the subject with an overall broad knowledge functionally serves as introspection to the artist, improves self awareness and tends to hone future works to ‘better’ art. In my view MotherNature is an abstract concept in relation to criticism. I elicit criticism from people who have a genuine interest in making my art better.
I guess it depends what you mean by criticism.
If it’s just saying “this is good, this is bad, this should be more like that”, then it’s probably a stupid ridiculousity. But then there’s criticism that introduces us to something unfamiliar, or leads us to look at something in a new way. Seems to be some value in that.
I agree with Sunil’s comment and the others as well. One question not yet addressed is, who is the criticism for? I might want to consider the flowers and what they evoke for me, or might evoke if they were rendered differently, and not intend it for anyone but myself. If I am a good writer, with fascinating knowledge I could bring to the discussion, maybe a lot of people would be interested in my musings. If I’m speaking to the photographer, it would be good to understand that person’s level of receptivity to whatever comments I might have. If I’m talking to Mother Nature, I’m taking poetic license or just insane!
Me personally, I believe that flowers are the result of evolution rather that the work of God (or Mother Nature). So unless there was a gardener involved, I wouldn’t criticize them the way I would a work of art. And if I did believe in God, I think I might be cautious before critiquing His work.
Frederick Turner once wrote that flowers reflect the aesthetic preferences of bees.
Criticism, done well, is an enjoyable thing to read. We don’t need criticism as a literary form – the art world would continue to function in the way that it does without it. But good criticism can enrich your aesthetic life, filling out the instant response of your taste. Bad criticism, of course, really is quite ridiculous.
Bees detect light in the UV range.
After hearing a lecture on bee vision in Woods Hole on Cape Cod, I took a walk, pretending to be a bee. I was horrified about what I saw – a green desert without very many flowers to feed from.
Franklin,
Excellent point about bees. Of course, many modern flowers and fruits have also “evolved” under the critical eye of human agriculturalists.
I think the natural aesthetic sense of animals is the basis of artistic appreciation in humans. An alternative is that art appreciation is a separately evolved function, like language.
I think the natural aesthetic sense of animals is the basis of artistic appreciation in humans.
I think so too. But there is an important difference: with works of art, we have the understanding that they were created by someone much like us. And the purposes of art, being products of human society and culture, can be quite different from those of nature.
What??? Aesthetic sense of animals? Can you give an example? For the bees it’s all about food. I can’t call that aesthetic. Now the evolution or art appreciation or art expression could be a fascinating and equally divisive topic. Did it have more to do with communication or with “hey, look at this”? :-)
What??? Aesthetic sense of animals? Can you give an example?
Polite example: male bird plumage.
“Hey, look at this” is a type of “communication,” no escaping that.
Hmmm…I guess I was thinking of aesthetic as going beyond direct satisfaction of desires like food or sex and required a higher level of consciousness than I’m willing to grant to birds. But I suppose even purple bacteria admire each other’s carotenoid color combos. And didn’t Rex say…
Steve,
There is a reasonable theory that art started as a form of sexual selection. If you can’t grow better feathers, then try drawing them instead. Same message.
However, I (like you, I think) believe that aesthetics are to do with something else. The confusion being that we use the same words for observing beauty within the species and observing beauty outside of it.
Why we (probably accidentally) ended up with a sense of aesthetics is a fascinating question.
Steve,
Birds didn’t get beautiful feathers by accident. One question is, are we evolved to find them beautiful? Another is, are the birds?
What about bird songs? Does it take no aesthetic sense to appreciate those?
Art is supposed to affect the emotions. Who says birds don’t have feelings?
Collin,
Accidental sense of aesthetics? Very interesting idea. I suppose it is accidental that we developed written language, in a sense. But I think aesthetic sense is much more intrinsic. Little kids have a strong sense of what they find beautiful.
Many interesting questions, this is certainly worth a post. I don’t have time for more discussion today, but I just want to thank Colin for the observation of word confusion deriving from application to a different area. And part of my confusion here was in thinking of aesthetic in association with artistic rather than with beautiful. Bird feathers and flowers I can find beautiful without their being artistic, which to me involves conscious creativity.
I don’t consider newspaper reviews, Ebert and Ropert or any television commentator to be criticism per se. They fall into the category of popular reportage of which I find there to be very little of value (Come on, thumbs up or thumbs down for a film….)
However, good critical evaluation of a work of art(be it film, canvas, dance, etc) can inform the viewer and the artist. Good criticism seeks to enlighten rather than to condemn.
I think Angela raised such an incredible interesting discussion.I cannot find the rihght words so quickly but I have a sense that there could be written a whole book about what just has been discussed.I mean doesn’t our whole life turn about critisism I mean you have to choose the whole day between things.
What does the word mean at all in latin?
But as for the flowers and birds I just love them and maybe we could start loving all art in a way that we love flowers as a form of blosseming of the person ( if we do’t do that yet).
By the time I got to this stage of Post and Comments, I felt like I was drowning in ideas. But, coming up for air —
Angela, I differentiate between criticism and critique: criticism is what I got from my mother when I failed to clean my room and what I get from my granddaughter when I try to sing.
Critiques, which segue into reviews in my mind, are probings from the eyes and touch and mind of a particular viewer/writer/speaker. Critiques circle and describe,they pick out this and that and think about that and this, they analyze those and these and interpret the others. Critiques are never complete, nor completely correct; they are individual perceptions, articulated, more or less finely, and this is why they can be valuable. And also why they can be useless, silly, and stupid.
Often, for me, critiques are most good for watching a verbal schema playing with a visual one, and they tell me a great deal about the critiquer. But they also tell me about my own art (if only how this ridiculously stupid person sees it), and I find that there are some critiques (not always positive) that have stuck with me and helped shape directions that I have taken.
As for the flower, I think perhaps there we are talking about distinctions, as hanneke says — all day long one makes distinctions such as I like this, I will take this, I dislike this I refuse that. Those kinds of distinctions are needed and we come up with them inductively or deductively,spontaneously or thoughtfully. But we don’t generally verbalize about them. They may ultimately add up to telling us about someone’s mind, but they don’t give us the kind of mind-watching that a decent critique can do. And I love “mind-watching” — watching the play of ideas and visuals working through the language of a thoughtful individual.
Finally I can’t resist throwing in the old notion that form follows function. In that sense, Angela and the laws of evolution top any of my own sideways mind-playing or mind-watching.
To make a pitch that animals have an esthetic sense, I googled for aesthetics and functional MRI and came across the new field of neuroaesthetics. Enough material for many posts.
en.wikipedia Neuroesthetics is a rapidly growing subdiscipline of neuroscience seeking to explain and understand the esthetics of domains such as art and music at the neurological level. The field was pioneered by Semir Zeki of the University College London. Neuroesthetics directs attention to the bodily structure and response of an organism in an encounter with esthetic phenomenon such as art. Tools such as neuroimaging and genetic analysis contribute to developing neuroesthetic knowledge.
Soon, there will be an on-line journal
http://www.neuroesthetics.org
Now you’ve done it, Birgit… I actually googled this site a while ago and was surprised that Ramachandran (at San Diego, do you him, Karl?) and Zeki hadn’t been mentioned yet. There’s a lot of good material there, very much worth discussing, and also a lot of bad speculation. If you’re intrigued (I am), I recommend reading the article Art and Neuroscience by John Hyman for some thoughtful perspective. Yes, it involves sex.
re karl’s comment: I think the natural aesthetic sense of animals is the basis of artistic appreciation in humans. An alternative is that art appreciation is a separately evolved function, like language.
There is evidence that bird songs and our language are related in their evolution:
enwikipedia: FOXP2, defects of which affect both speech and comprehension of language in humans, becomes more active in the striatal region of songbirds during the time of song learning.
Wow.
What a great topic and fun discussion I missed while taking a little time off.
Thank you Angela, for posting this in the first place. Like June, I think it’s important to distinguish between “critique” and “criticism.” One time I looked up “criticize” in several dictionaries to see just where the constructive senses fall, and from what I can see, usage says otherwise. People do not use or understand the word as constructive at all. That’s a specialized definition. But “critique” is understood to be analytical, not just the finding of wrongnesses.
Every once in while I’ll hear someone say they don’t mind criticism.
What a laugh.
In personnel reviews, there’s always that line, “How does employee respond to criticism?”
At best, we learn to keep our cool and pay attention to what might be useful information we can use to improve. But no one likes criticism.
Its true that “criticize” has negative connotations, although I think the word is worth reclaiming for constructive engagement with art. But “criticism” is used all the time in the sense of art criticism, film criticism, etcetera. “Critique” sounds a bit pretentious to me (yes, I know I used it myself). “Review” suggests the kind of “popular reportage” lamented by Culture Ghost. Reviews tend to either avoid making evaluations or to give out polarizing good or bad type judgements. I try for criticism rather than review in my own newspaper pieces. But sometimes that’s difficult.
Of course, we could sit here all weekend and argue about word usage, but it will have no substantial impact on the real world.
Of course, we could sit here all weekend and argue about word usage, but it will have no substantial impact on the real world.
Here’s what Dave Hickey wrote:
“Colleagues of mine will tell you that people despise critics because they fear our power. But I know better. People despise critics because people despise weakness, and criticism is the weakest thing you can do in writing, It is the written equivalent of air guitar – flurries of silent, sympathetic gestures with nothing at their heart but the memory of the music. It produces no knowledge, states no facts, and never stands alone. It neither saves the things we love (as we would wish them saved) nor ruins the things we hate.”
That said, his book of criticism, Air Guitar, is some of the best art writing I’ve ever come across.
Well done criticism is art about art. It might or might not add to knowledge about an artwork that is the nominal subject, but it surely adds something to human creative output. Judge each piece on its merits. I’ve certainly read criticism that is far more worth saving than the work discussed.
I’ve certainly read criticism that is far more worth saving than the work discussed.
Sometimes the work discussed is just an excuse for something the writer wanted to say anyway.
Dave Hickey is a genius!
Arthur,
As a writer, you know that the definitions of words do not belong to you. You use words knowing how they will be understood, and you violate that understanding at your peril. We see thousands of instances where people try to bend the meanings of words to what they wish they would mean, but it rarely, rarely sticks.
Nowadays we say “he or she” instead of “he;” we say “humans” or “people” instead of “man.” But that’s the exception.
Language evolves with its own spirit. You can say criticism is not necessarily derogatory until Antarctica melts, and people will still use and understand it their way.
Some of us do, however, get what sense is meant. We know that words have more than one meaning, and sometimes the meanings are contrary. One time I read a great book called A Soldier of the Great War by Mark Helprin. The main character, an Italian, wanted to be not an “art critic,” but an “aesthetician.” His quest to go to Vienna, Austria, to see The Tempest was most unfortunately interrupted by WWI, and he found himself fighting Austrians — whom he was perfectly distraught to have as enemies — in the Italian Alps.
Aesthetician stuck in my mind as the word for a professional description the world could use more of.
Aesthetician stuck in my mind as the word for a professional description the world could use more of.
Posted on a sign at a construction site I saw a job title that I decided I like to have someday. The sign gave the name and phone number for the “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” Is that cool or what!
Aesthetician stuck in my mind as the word for a professional description the world could use more of
Nooooo. They would have rules, and a journal with letters pages and stuff. Please, nooooo.
As a writer, you know that the definitions of words do not belong to you. You use words knowing how they will be understood, and you violate that understanding at your peril.
I never said that you could use words in any old way you want to. But you can use them in different ways. Whether or not I’m understood depends on what I say, the way I say it, who I’m speaking to, the broader context, and so forth.
I’ve used the word “criticism” in a more or less non-derogatory way and been understood. If I’m careful, people tend to catch my drift. So there.
Aesthetician stuck in my mind as the word for a professional description the world could use more of.
An aesthetician is either a philosopher or a cosmetologist. I am neither.
As you say, Arthur, if you’re careful.
Well I try to be.
Careful? I think being careful has its own consequences.
I was told by two very close friends of an experience they shared together back in their early 30s. One was teaching a community (middle-aged moms) Figure Drawing class and the other was in town, visiting. One afternoon the model failed to show up, so Ken asked Chris if he would pose. He was willing (really good abs). After the first series of poses, Chris walked around the classroom to look at students’ work. He then returned to the platform but before striking the next pose he requested: “Will someone please draw my penis.”
I am also reminded of a Parent Meeting that I attended several years ago for my child’s nursery school. At issue was whether or not we would give the Head Teacher another raise. The President of the school spoke on her behalf, citing the salary of a pubic school teacher. Although, I am a proponent of better pay for teachers, I pointed out that the Head Teacher had nothing near the responsibilities and workload of a public school teachers. And only minimal preparation. Minimal curriculum. No homework. She also has two full-time assistants and a parent volunteer everyday. And only 15 students. The President responded directly to me: you are obviously not a woman and have no idea how hard it is to raise two children as a single parent.
I remember thinking that I would have been better off simply saying that I sensed the Teacher was particularly uninspiring and lacked a commitment to the school. She got the raise and quit after a month.
I am not so interested in reading what results from the censor of being “careful”; instead I prefer what I perceive to be honest and direct.
For several years, I wrote art reviews for a local paper. In the end, I had become “careful” by only writing about the Good. Of course, this meant I wrote fewer reviews, which ultimately pissed off every gallery and museum in town. They understood and did not like the implications of my Silence.
Arthur: have you ever considered doing curatorial work. It is exhilarating to gather work you believe in and share it with others, in writing and as an experience.
Well of course you can be both too careful and not careful enough. If I wrote down everything that popped into my head, that wouldn’t work so well.
As for whether or not to focus only on the Good, that’s something worth debating. I’ll start a new post on the topic unless somebody else wants to.
I’d love to do curatorial work. I don’t have the right connections or experience at the moment.
Arthur,
Why be connected? Institutions are, well, institutional.
Here is an idea (and an experience): curate a simple show (“5 Works I Really Really Like”, “Reproductions of My Neighbor’s Artwork on their Walls”, etc.) and post it here. Ask your colleagues at A&P to tell a friend about it or make a flyer and hang it in their favorite coffee shop. I’ll make one for your show and post it.
And then you can review it in your paper or have someone else, etc.
D.,
Fabulous idea for a simple curation. I’ve been thinking through a similar concept for a couple other settings, but this would be a fine place to test the waters. I think it would be nice to have a portion of the web site be contributed posts on single works with somewhat curatorial introductions by the poster (does not have to be too scholarly). These would then be discussed by any interested, and further information could be contributed, as we just had a nice model of regarding the Michelangelo quote. The posts would constitute our group museum, and the notes plus comments would serve the function of a collective docent. Again, I don’t mean to imply only scholarly comments; all reactions and conversations are valid, as usual.
Anyway, that’s the thought, and others may have other ideas. In any case, let Arthur or anyone try it out in a normal post and see how it goes.
Arthur,
Of course, you are right about the use of the word criticism, as in “literary criticism” or “music criticism” or “art criticism.” My mind was in a different space, but “art criticism” is a learned discipline, like art history. And that may well be the way Angela was thinking of it, too.
Your usage and Rex’s and my usage are two different, but both legitimate, meanings of the word, and unfortunately they sometimes overlap – the writer of art criticism finds himself criticizing the art as well as analyzing and interpreting and describing. And rightfully so. The tender-hearted artist sees “criticism,” mixes the meanings, and condemns the whole field. While others ponder whether thinking hard about art is worth while — why not just enjoy it?
And then my answer has to be that I enjoy thinking hard about it, just as I enjoy looking long at it, and talking too much about it.
As for posting single works and making commentaries — it sounds like fun. Although I am already pressed to keep up with the ideas here.
Art and Neuroscience? You mean, I could have stayed in my old day job? Ugh!
Seriously Steve, I know Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and I tried to make an interview appointment with him when I was in San Diego. I should have tried harder, but I had jet lag. Next time . . .
Criticism is neither a ridiculous stupidity nor a valuable tool – only individual critics work could be that. Useful or insightful or just entertaining criticism comes from a critic with opinions that you find useful, insightful, or entertaining. Influential criticism comes from a critic that a whole lot of people find useful, insightful or entertaining.
Just like art, for that matter. . .
Good point, Marc. I think Arthur Whitman might argue that art criticism is an art form in itself. I would agree with that notion, anyway.
What about children’s art then? Should we think of it as a category, like grown-up art, or should we think in terms of individuals?
Here is an idea (and an experience): curate a simple show (”5 Works I Really Really Like”, “Reproductions of My Neighbor’s Artwork on their Walls”, etc.) and post it here. Ask your colleagues at A&P to tell a friend about it or make a flyer and hang it in their favorite coffee shop. I’ll make one for your show and post it.
Great idea–I’ll get to it.
What about children’s art then? Should we think of it as a category, like grown-up art, or should we think in terms of individuals?
Why not both?
Arthur Whitman might argue that art criticism is an art form in itself.
Yes, albeit a rather specialized, parasitic and decadent one.
Arthur,
I’ve been so freakingly busy, I have not had time to say some of the things I wished to say or thought about, so before I dash off onto another of my Missions, and now that the morning’s drawing is done, I can get in something I would have added yesterday — context.
The word “criticism,” all by itself tends to evoke only the populist definitions, but as soon as we put an adjectival modifier anywhere near it, like “art criticism,” “social criticism,” “political criticism,” etc any educated person knows we are probably not only talking about ridicule or insults but critical analysis. While it’s true that some art, etc critics do merely insult or ridicule, they also thereby certainly demonstrate themselves as merely unprofessional.
I’ve noted that when you don’t like (or like) something, you give reasons, and the reasons can be evaluated. Opinions are opinions and are presented as such.
Yes, I’m preaching to the choir, probably, but still, I just wanted to go on record as a little more nuanced and and understanding about criticism. I know I read art criticism regularly. I’m of the opinion that art critics are positioned to advance or retard the arts, and so I always look for social responsibility in their work.
So “parasitic and decadent” need not apply!
The word “criticism,” all by itself tends to evoke only the populist definitions, but as soon as we put an adjectival modifier anywhere near it, like “art criticism,” “social criticism,” “political criticism,” etc any educated person knows we are probably not only talking about ridicule or insults but critical analysis
Then there appears to be no disagreement.