 |
| 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 21st
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
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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, An excellent and well thought out response to my article. Discussion about art criticism is a delicate one and as you say there should be more debate and less fear about it. The fear factor is in need of analysis I think. After my years in the art world, in academia, exhibiting in main stream and alternative spaces, gallery directing and viewing exhibitions across Australia I felt real apprehension in writing about it and perhaps generalised a little too much in some areas.Going with a gut feeling is sometimes the only way to attract attention and I am pleased I drew your well informed comments.
DeleteEdna Broad