A Critic Runs Smack Into The 21st Century
In what I can only describe as a distinctly English rant, Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones tried to explain this weekend what makes him qualified to pass judgment on other people's work...
"The reason so much average or absolutely awful art gets promoted is that no one seems to understand what criticism is; if nothing is properly criticised, mediocrity triumphs. A critic is basically an arrogant bastard who says 'this is good, this is bad' without necessarily being able to explain why. At least, not instantly. The truth is, we feel this stuff in our bones. And we're innately convinced we're right."
I understand that point of view, especially since Jones goes on to lay bare the role his own ego plays in doing his job. There's a distinct parallel there, too, to the egos of the artists, actors, and musicians who spend their lives having judgment passed on their work by people like Jones. If a critic is an arrogant bastard who declares things good and bad, then who are we but arrogant bastards who lay something out on the stage with the implicit declaration that it is good, and then dare you to disagree?
Still, I think there's an angle that Jones is missing here, and it's that, for most of the history of art, the only real recourse available to an artist whose work had just been trashed by a self-appointed expert was to either hunt him down and punch him in the nose, or write a whiny, self-indulgent Letter To The Editor, which would be read only by other whiny, self-indulgent types looking for their own letters.
Today, of course, the entire world has its say on every issue under the sun on a more or less continual basis, here on the series of tubes. Which is to say, there's nothing stopping an artist or performer who feels wronged by a critic from firing back in any one of a hundred ways. There's also nothing stopping anyone else in the general public from offering up their own critique, however ill-informed or brilliant. And as Jones's little screed suggests, critics have been getting a wee bit sensitive about this of late...
"Of course, by being so blunt, I run the risk of vilification. I will be seen as a vapid snob, elitist, etc. But I am no more guilty of these traits than anyone else who sets themselves up as a professional critic; I'm just trying to be honest... Unless you think you're right, you shouldn't pass verdict on art that is someone's dream, someone's life."
I guess. But one of the first things that artists (and athletes, and politicians, etc) in previous eras have always had to learn to survive is that firing back at a critic is a losing battle. If you ask me, the real lesson here is that it's about time that critics grew some thicker skin and stopped endlessly trying to justify their existence to people who disagree with their perspective.
The headline on the Guardian column reads, "Art criticism is not a democracy." It's an odd thing to write, since art criticism is, in point of fact, every bit a democracy these days, as the 129 comments appended to Jones's work attest. And the "professionals" had better figure out a way to stay on top of the pile before someone comes along and knocks them off for good.
"The reason so much average or absolutely awful art gets promoted is that no one seems to understand what criticism is; if nothing is properly criticised, mediocrity triumphs. A critic is basically an arrogant bastard who says 'this is good, this is bad' without necessarily being able to explain why. At least, not instantly. The truth is, we feel this stuff in our bones. And we're innately convinced we're right."
I understand that point of view, especially since Jones goes on to lay bare the role his own ego plays in doing his job. There's a distinct parallel there, too, to the egos of the artists, actors, and musicians who spend their lives having judgment passed on their work by people like Jones. If a critic is an arrogant bastard who declares things good and bad, then who are we but arrogant bastards who lay something out on the stage with the implicit declaration that it is good, and then dare you to disagree?
Still, I think there's an angle that Jones is missing here, and it's that, for most of the history of art, the only real recourse available to an artist whose work had just been trashed by a self-appointed expert was to either hunt him down and punch him in the nose, or write a whiny, self-indulgent Letter To The Editor, which would be read only by other whiny, self-indulgent types looking for their own letters.
Today, of course, the entire world has its say on every issue under the sun on a more or less continual basis, here on the series of tubes. Which is to say, there's nothing stopping an artist or performer who feels wronged by a critic from firing back in any one of a hundred ways. There's also nothing stopping anyone else in the general public from offering up their own critique, however ill-informed or brilliant. And as Jones's little screed suggests, critics have been getting a wee bit sensitive about this of late...
"Of course, by being so blunt, I run the risk of vilification. I will be seen as a vapid snob, elitist, etc. But I am no more guilty of these traits than anyone else who sets themselves up as a professional critic; I'm just trying to be honest... Unless you think you're right, you shouldn't pass verdict on art that is someone's dream, someone's life."
I guess. But one of the first things that artists (and athletes, and politicians, etc) in previous eras have always had to learn to survive is that firing back at a critic is a losing battle. If you ask me, the real lesson here is that it's about time that critics grew some thicker skin and stopped endlessly trying to justify their existence to people who disagree with their perspective.
The headline on the Guardian column reads, "Art criticism is not a democracy." It's an odd thing to write, since art criticism is, in point of fact, every bit a democracy these days, as the 129 comments appended to Jones's work attest. And the "professionals" had better figure out a way to stay on top of the pile before someone comes along and knocks them off for good.
Labels: the media
posted by Sam at
9:50 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Apologies for deleting your comment, MC, but it contained a profanity that would have gotten it removed by our blog administrators if I hadn't. I'm reposting it in full here, minus the profanity...
"But one of the first things that artists... of all stripes have to learn to survive is that firing back at a critic for a bad review is a losing battle."
Nonsense. Why on earth should anyone hold their tongues when they disagree with a piece of criticism, especially if they are the object of that criticism.
Besides, your stated thought that artists should "have to learn" to just 'shut up' and take s*** from bad critics flies in the face of your stated thought that "art criticism is, in point of fact, every bit a democracy these days".
So, which is it?
I invite you to pick up "The Gentle Art of Making Enemies", a collection of Whistler's stinging correspondence with his critics.
You'll find that, no, artists don't always come across as "whiny, self-indulgent types" like so many online art columnists unfortunately do...
By the way, my assertion that taking on a critic is usually a losing battle is based on the age-old notion that the guy whose words get published whenever he wants them to be always gets the last word. My point was that this has now changed, and the shoe is on the other foot. Critics, accustomed to always getting the last word, no longer necessarily do.
Art to artists doesn't mean "hail" to mediocrity.
It seems to me like artists are some vagabonds who are incapable to be seriously judgmental of each other’s works; therefore there must be some middle man who reasons to the rest of the world what a particular artist with his/her artwork is trying to do, as artists, themselves, are incapable of doing so.
Actually, it seems as artists are, for some reason, not trustworthy, and because their works occupy "public domain," we need someone who is not the art practitioner, in the first place, and who is coming from the "public domain" to tell the members of the "public domain" what it that they are exposed to is.
And now looking at this previous paragraph, I wonder does this mean that artists are not members of "public domains." Does this mean that artists are not members of societies? Does this mean that they haven’t grown up in this world as the rest members of the “public domain” with whom they share the everyday experiences? Does this mean that the education that the artists have been exposed to throughout their creative lives and centuries is invalid, weak?
This is a very serious and complex problem, which is just the surface of a huge iceberg of an interesting relation among different power structures of societies.
Sam, Twitter has apparently become the method of choice to respond to critics by some writers. I recently read that Alice McDermott, the acclaimed short story writer and novelist, had received a less than stellar review from a critic and in response, started firing off tweets about the critic and his review. At last count, when the article had been posted, she'd written 24 tweets (and counting) and apparently the critic had not been able to get in a word edgewise!
It's impossible to please everyone all the time. I read music critics, literary critics, movie critics and few of them I agree with all the time (if ever). My philosophy is to read reviews as ONE PERSON'S OPINION and not the end of the world or reason to expect a Nobel Prize.
There is a fun quote from George Bernard Shaw when he took on the job of music critic -- he said it was a job that privileged lunacy....(smile)
Cinda
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home