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