Art Criticism; Food for Thought

[paulr]

I am no fan of fluff, but I think the main thing is not to feel intimidated or irritated by the big words; their use does not automatically imply that an author is trying to talk down to us, the reader. It is more important to decide whether the big words are necessary, or merely used irrelevantly.

Paul, I would disagree that all good writers say things simply; I would take Faulkner over Hemingway any day of the week, for example. Yes, I prefer a straightforward style ( I am a huge fan of Szarkowski, for example), but I think there is always room for nuance, or even personal style, and as such, sometimes the big, fancy terms are important, because they may elucidate a particular meaning the best.

Claudio, I sense that we don't really disagree. The enemy isn't the big word; it's the big word used where a simple word would do as well or even better. Likewise the complex sentence is only the enemy when a simple one would do as well or even better.

I am a fan of both Hemingway and of Faulkner, and would hold both as examples of great writing. Hemingway (typically) wrote more tersely, but both wrote economically and with the force of clarity and precision.

And I think I could find examples of Szarkowski using long words and intricate sentences ... in cases where he couldn't find a more concise way to express the idea.

[Greg Miller]

For me photography is the art of subtraction. That is we remove everything possible from the frame that does not contribute to the message of the image. That makes it more possible for the viewer to understand the message of the image. The same concept should apply to writing, including artist statements. Being pedantic does not usually contribute to understanding. But sometimes it is necessary to use "fancy" words that are not part of the typical persons vocabulary, which sacrifices the understanding for some for the sake of clarity for others.

[dazedgonebye]

Was it Einstein that said, "Don't make this crap any more complicated than you hafta?"

...or something like that. :-)

[paulr]

I hate talking about my work, or anybody else's. Either I like it or I don't. The images must do the talking.

KISS

I hear that a lot. The trouble is, the images only do the talking if you share enough context (artistic, cultural, historical) with the artist. In other words, you need to speak the same visual language.

If you as a 21st Century American look at ancient Egyptian religious art, without any background in the culture that produced it, you won't be able to appreciate it as anything more than pretty objects. Your impressions would be no deeper than if you judged a book of Chinese poetry based on the esthetics of the brushshtrokes.

Likewise, it's possible to be illiterate in the language of contemporary art, if you're unaware of the tradition that inspired it. I confront this a lot. I haven't paid much attention to painting that's been done since the 1960s or so. I missed a lot, and now don't share much common language with contemporary painters. So when I see contemporary work, I have to assume that I'm missing a lot. Thoughtful text can help ... not to "explain" the work, but to help illuminate what I otherwise wouldn't see.

[Vaughn]

A lazy mind will not be able to appreciate good writing...some work can be expected of the reader to pull out the most from a good critique. Sometimes I feel that the those of us growing up in the Age of Television and the more recent Age of Google, want nothing more than to be spoon fed information in short easily understandable bites...not too spicy, not too unfamiliar and very easy to swallow.

Yes...some of what is out there is artspeak gobbly-gook. But many times this lable is also put on writings that just require a little more thought to digest and to pull out a deeper meaning. Good writing deserves one's full attention. When I read Rainer Maria Rilke, sometimes the words just pass by me and they seem empty. I know to put the book down and wait until my mind is in the right space...then the words can sing to me. It is not Rilke's fault that his words are not accessible to me on demand.

Sometimes a writer will use words I do not fully know the meaning of...and it is my responcibility as a reader to look the word up and weigh the difference in meaning that that word gives his/her writing than a more simpler word would have given.

Art critique is a specialized field. It does have its own language. One does not expect a paper on physics to be written in language 100% understandable by someone not familiar with the basic knowledge of physics. So why expect an art critic (other than those writing for a newspaper) to dumb down his/her writing for those without a basic understanding of art?

I appreciate good writing. And sometimes a good writer has ideas that I think are a little screwy (for example, two women holding hands in a Victorian image does not necessarily mean they were lesbians...sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke, as someone once wrote). Ans sometimes I can even learn something.

Vaughn

PS...I also agree with the Abuser of Sunlight -- one should be able to communicate with words about one's art...it takes practice and can be very hard work. Some are not willing to put in the effort...and "The work speaks for itself" can be a very easy cop-out. But there will always be people who will not talk or write about their work -- and people who will not take the time (and effort) to read an artist's statement.

[Nathan Potter]

Paul and Vaughn, very well placed comments. I agree completely with your points.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ben Syverson]

Vaughn is right on. I will just add a couple random thoughts.

How would you feel if someone said "what is up with your ridiculous gigantic camera? Why don't you just use a Canon 5D like a normal person?" The answer is that people who are good at what they do use the appropriate tools for the job, whether we're talking about cameras or words. And sometimes you take a bad picture, and sometimes a critic writes a bad essay.

One last thing... After everything that's transpired over the past eight years, it's hard for me to have any sympathy for this anti-academic anti-intellectualism. Sorry to take it there, but it honestly has given me a huge appreciation for people who are thoughtful, intelligent, and good at what they do, no matter what it is.

[Chris Jones]

A few weeks ago I had some discussions with US poets, who to survive teach writing to college students and it seems that despite almost half the United States population having degrees there has been a significant decline in written literacy over the past two or three decades. I suspect that writing is being pushed into a specialist area rather then a general skill?

Being able to write about what you are doing and to defend your aesthetics was considered essential in the avant-garde art school I attended but sometimes I feel rather old school in saying this.

(I liked the sound of the research into the Texan landscape in an earlier post, BTW.)

[walter23]

You will never ask yourself, why did so and so say "verisimilitude" when all she meant was "similarity"?

Do you agree/disagree?

I agree completely. Certain uncommon words are necessary to lend precision or variety to your writing, but overuse of them is just annoying to read. The best pieces of writing, whether fiction or scientific journal articles, tend to be written as elegantly as possible. Bombarding your audience with uncommon words is usually one of the least elegant ways to write. In some situations jargon is necessary, and there are obviously cases where elaborate and interesting language is very appropriate, but you have to be very careful to use these things with some skill, and as I've said, elegance.

Just my opinion

[Bruce Watson]

I didn't really want to get on this thread; I'm of shifting thoughts about the role of art criticism in society. But the thread is heading in an interesting direction and I feel a need to contribute. Oy.

It's not the big words or the long complicated sentences that are bothering people perhaps. I think that much of what is done (criticism, novels, painting, photography, sculpture, wood working, etc.) is done as an excuse to use the tools of the trade. This is the opposite of what is needed. Instead of the work supporting the tools, it should be the tools supporting the work. This begs the question of how does one learn to use the tools unless one practices? I think that's generally called "homework."

The problem most of us have with art criticism is that the author has little to say, but a quota of column-inches to fill. We've all seen this same problem in all kinds of fields. Certainly we've seen photographs that were exquisitely done but had little to say -- Ansel's old "sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept" and all that. Most of us have read novels that were well written but didn't have a story to tell. Or seen movies that were so lacking in story that the movie was nothing more than a series of cool special effects hooked together. Or read art criticism that was clearly written to establish the author's MFA creds. and says little about the art in question.

What we need is for the critics to decide what they want to say, then choose the tools from their toolkit that will enable them to say what they need to say in the most elegant way they can. And this will mean that they have tools that they seldom use. Just like we don't use every movement on every shot.

There is a secondary problem however. That is the last 30 years or so of the continuous dumbing down of society. It's not so much that the critics are writing at such a high level as it is that the people can no longer operate at that same high level.

So what does one do? Lower the bar? Or raise to the challenge?

Most everyone participating on this forum should be in favor of raising to the challenge. Clearly they are in the field of photograph or they wouldn't be using view cameras.