TIDE ON THE OUT

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

 

-

 

CONTRIBUTORS 155&73

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ART CRITICISM? ... A Response!

Thank you, Dr Edna Broad, for your interesting article on art criticism.  I found it insightful and a kick-starter in a debate that needs to happen as I see a lot of fear in addressing art.

I agree that there is a lack of criticism within the art world, and that there are a combination of reasons for this being.  I disagree, though, with your question in regard to artists being able to take criticism from academia and for your reasoning that our society praises all efforts of human endeavour, ‘mediocre or otherwise’.

It is true that mediocre work is passed within institutions.  I have seen this in some university courses where numbers are needed, as well as within the Tafe system where technique is more important than theory.  This has the effect of lowering the standards and expectations of the artists applying and entering courses.

However, what I don't believe true, and I would be glad of your correction, is that students cannot take criticism of their work.  On the contrary, I have found that in good students there is a fear that their work is mediocre and crave more criticism, feeling that they don’t receive enough well thought through analyses from teachers, peers or public.  In some courses students are taught critique in an effort to strengthen their work, and they flourish from self critique and peer review.  In fact I find that artists taught to analyse their work seek more outside input but have a narrow field of choice when it comes to asking.  Sometimes the artist is too close to the work to see and needs the eye of those outside their circle.

Problems occur when artists armed with a little or no analytical knowledge find themselves exhibiting in the ‘real’ world.   The public or their friends then become the ‘critics’ with words of praise for mediocre work.   The artist can easily fall into the trap in believing that their work is good because it is what the public understand and want.

I feel that art criticism in a ‘literary sense’ may not happen because there are few who are educated in the art of criticism to do so.  Maybe those who are see only a small proportion of art that is visible in main stream galleries as they are not prepared to seek out alternative art spaces.   The other problem maybe that Australia’s population is small and would-be critics are reluctant to critique work at the risk of offending and losing friends, or gaining enemies.  

One written work which is used as a teaching tool for art analyses is Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird which can be found in the book Art & Discontent (Theory at the Millennium) by Thomas McEvilley  http://www.mcphersonco.com/cs.php?f%5B0%5D=shh&pdID=18.  It does not define work as good or bad but how it fits in with the discourse of art, giving clues on how to analyse work and to ask questions about it rather than relying solely on gut feelings.  For me it answers your question of defining ‘good or bad art’ by placing it alongside other works of art and comparing it’s relevance.

Again I thank you for this article as there is not enough written on this subject.  I look forward to reading more.


McEvilley T 1991, Art & Discontent (Theory at the Millennium), McPherson & Co Publishers, New York

 Mary Hackett http://www.blogger.com/profile/0239397610205583793

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ART CRITICISM? http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-has-happened-to-art-criticism.html

PAY YOUR RATES NOW!

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

INTRODUCING 'SCRONGER' Social Commentator Fairly Ordinary

A Muzing

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CONTRIBUTOR: Tim Thorne

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ART CRITICISM?

Click on the image to enlarge

Wikipedia defines art criticism as the discussion or evaluation of visual art and that art critics usually criticise art in the context of aesthetics or the theory of beauty.  My definition is that these two concepts don’t fit into the current perception of evaluating art. So what has happened to art criticism?

The first question is - what is an art work? Is it something directed, labelled and documented as such either by a curator or by the artist who conceived or constructed or contracted the work to be made; is it displayed in a public or private space, is it work by a well known artist represented by a commercial gallery, or work entered into an award art prize competition.  Is it a projected image, multimedia or installation in a garden, building etc?  But this summary is a more selective definition because the general public uneducated in art still consider paintings, sculptures or drawing as art  and art criticism is whether a person likes the work or not regardless of its merits. To these people all other imagery is entertainment or experiences.

Are artists still able to take criticism from academia, the public or from their peers? Not so much now because  at the heart of any definition about art criticism I believe, is a contemporary paradigm in Australian society that praise be given to all efforts of human application, mediocre or otherwise, as being equally worthy of note just because an effort has been made. This levelling of the playing field seems to pursue the belief that singling individuals out for criticism could cause psychological harm to delicate egos. 

Using this line of reasoning art criticism would appear to be dead in a literary sense because it proposes that all art work is of equal quality unless awarded large prize money, followed by gallery representation, large price tags and commodification.  Most syndicated newspapers give token space to art but avoid art critiicism.

It still remains however that as individuals we probably have all been to exhibitions and looked at the art work displayed and thought  ‘what a load of crap this is’ but then notice a group of viewers heaping praise on the work. The quandry then is ‘did I miss something here and is this really the ‘edge’ now’. The old adage that beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder still holds true but now the eye needs to swivel in all directions at once and ask ‘what am I looking at and what is its context’?

If we think we are smart enough to define what we are looking at then perhaps we are also smart enough to criticise it.

I have tentatively ventured into this quagmire occasionally and criticised  artists’ work because I feel they are consciously using wordy artifice or artwank to elevate the concept of their work beyond its relevance to either the medium used or the application of it. Giving long names and vague unrelated waffle to a series of mediocre art works deserves criticism and even more so if the artist has a long history of art education and practice because then it is not the art work that is being exhibited but the reputation of the artist.

The problem as I see it is what do we define as good or bad art and who makes that decision. Who is qualified to decide where the artwork fits into the history of art or whether the 21^st century sees linear art history as irrelevant.  Who is able to criticise thought bubbles that often are the only basis for cobbled together bits and pieces of seemingly unrelated material with attached explanatory artist or curatorial statements often lengthy and incomprehensible?

Click on the image to enlarge

Lots of questions. Very few answers. Perhaps one answer could be that digital social media has overtaken the majority of cultural exchange and offered anyone the ability to access, create or change any imagery of choice. Art history has become whatever you want it to be and a grab bag of it only a Google click away to whatever you want without using a context. 

Another answer in the negative may be the influence on art by advertising hype and its imagery that has absorbed the fabric of our daily lives by borrowing our icons, our songs, our memories and even our history to seduce us to consume commodities. While these borrowed images, cultural icons and concepts are played back to us and reabsorbed into our visual culture we become mirrored in the message and confused about how many truths exist out there.

Drawing yet another long bow to what has happened to art criticism is that in this era of increasing social conservatism and political correctness, art practice has expanded into so many disparate areas of confused message and material expression as to become art echoing life and vice versa.

Perhaps it is at this point that the critical aspect of looking at art has become dumbed down and the journalist/writer uses the curator’s essay or the artist’s statement to summarise an exhibition without criticism because it is too hard to make an objective comment because of all or some of the above. Similarly the political press release informs the media – no questions because we are not sure of the meaning of the answers.

Dr Edna Broad – Launceston

Reconfiguring The Tamar: A 1940s Imagining

LINK #1 ... http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/60995041

LINK #2 ... http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61003064

LINK # 3 ... http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/96476749

Reconfiguring the Tamar Estuary is not a new idea and it wasn't even new in the 1940s. Its an idea that has never really won the approvals need yet its an idea that seems to keep on popping up as grand solution to all manner of problems.

Like so many HEROICideas the rationalisation follows the concept that is not always required to be purposeful. Under the headline "LOCKING THE TAMAR" in The Examiner October 1910, one Hedly Button said .... "If we could have a river of 25ft deep without a- lock it would , of course be best, provided the upkeep of that condition of efficiency was not out of proportion to revenue, but we are led to believe that with a deeper' ohannel 'the cost of dredging is going to increase for annual, up-keep. So that if a scheme of 'improvement entails an   outlay... then £10,000 will be fairiy good business to investigate .... LINK

Interestingly Hedly was also advocating the planting of willows for profit. An idea that seems to have caught on but it doesn't seem to have delivered the promised(?), well speculated, dividends.

Nonetheless the reimaginers cannot be accused of a lack of imagination. Undaunted by whatever evidence/information there may have been to down play an idea, advantages were always able to be found. One presumes that if you've just won(?) a war that might give you permission to be optermistic– even against the odds.

Interestingly in the Examiner Dec 28 1946 an article by one R Norman Smith (Graphic 3) appeared on the subject saying that:

“The project is large enough to warrant sending a couple of your expert engineers abroad. to investigate its possibilities. Many Advantages As I see it. some of the advantages would be:

1. Prevention of water flooding, Launceston and surroundings.
2. Navigation for larger and deeper drafted boats than at present at all times of the day or night.
3. Water available to either side of the river through community: pumping for either household water or for irrigation.
4. Residential sites with water electricity and boating facilities.
5. A large fresh-water lake about the size of the Great Lake.
6. A very much needed bridge giving access from one side of the river to the other, which would also be a great tourist drive.
7. A boatman's paradise an ability to hold regattas or aquatic carnivals whenever desired.
8. A great resort for fishermen.
9. Suitability of Home Reach as, a flying boat terminus.
10. A splendid submarine base.
11. A much-needed water, supply for ships visiting the port.
12. Removal of the cause of frequent floodings of the railway line between Launceston and St. Leonards.
13. Growing of early flowers and vegetables, both for home use and export.
14. Saving the banks of the river from erosion.
15. And, far the most important, the salvation of Launceston.

I should add, too, the very great value that would accrue from harnessing the waters of the spillways for industries and probably also for power.”
Mr Norman Smith may well have overlooked something that we might envisage today. However it is hard to imagine how the authorities could not see the value of a "submarine base" – Advantage 10 – in Launceston and the flow ons that might have presented the city with.

With all the advantages imagined in the 1940s it is easy to see why an inquisitive mind might want to wonder about what's inside the square and contemplate being open to stepping out. The 15 advantages imagined in the 1940 will have surely grown and clearly it is time for some outside-the-square thinking. This time round the corporate world will surely be more ready and willing to throw their shareholder's investments into this kind of project with all the dividends it promises. Government is cash strapped but Australian's superannuation funds might well prove to be a source of  funding open to this kind of project. Its an idea that may well have found its time.

Tamar Lake: A Heroic Proposal

Click on the image to enlarge

If one were to be looking for an exemplar of 'audacious placescaping' the Tamar Lake 'proposal' would without doubt amply fit the bill. All kind of assertions are being made for the 'benefits' for the proposal. Those with an interest in the "economic advantages" the creation of a Tamar Lake will deliver are the most audible. 

Likewise, the 'proposal' has its detractors who are quietly forming a coalition of the unwilling.

All in all, this proposal to convert a tidal estuary into a freshwater lake is nothing less than heroic. The proposal has all the makings of an ongoing critical discourse with a very local focus. Already critics are being threatened with the consequences of their speaking out albeit that it seems the proposal is yet to establish its own feasibility – economically and environmentally.

Clearly, there is an intent to draw a line in the sand and bring on the debate. There are bound to be controversial commentaries yet to emerge as this placescaping proposition tries to win the attention of anyone with the wherewithal carry the 'idea' forward. Watch this space!

CLICK HERE to go to the proposal's website
CLICK HERE to go to the proposal's FACEbook page