Art Criticism; Food for Thought

[Rider]

The discussion about RJ Lam's artist statement and whether it's appropriate to use big/fancy/foreign words in art criticism got me to asking myself:

How do the art critics that I truly admire express themselves?

I looked at some great essays, including ones by John Berger, by no means an insignificant figure.

And guess what: the art critics who I find persuasive seem to be the ones who use the simplest, most elegant language available to them. They know all the big words, but they don't drop them like misguided smart bombs on unsuspecting ear drums (a form of collateral damage).

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

Do you agree/disagree? Are there ideas that are so foreign to (my) Western thinking that half a dozen unfamiliar words from almost as many languages are required in a single sentence to convey those ideas?

-Rider

[Daniel Grenier]

After some 35+ years of interest in FA photography and countless shows viewed of all the Masters, (and especially since Szarkowski passed away) I have stopped reading/bothering with this Art Criticism Bull . The pictures tell it all (to me at least).

I agree with the annoying big-word dropping. Don't you just want to slap these Bozos!

However, if one day you're bent on impressing with big ole words and find yourself a bit short in the bullshit department, I suggest you use this link for help: http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html

Punch in a 5 digit number and voila. Instant bull!

Man, I miss Szarkowski !

[Michael Alpert]

"Verisimilitude" and "similarity" are not the same. The first refers to appearence, the second has a meaning that is broader (or deeper) in scope--that is, the reality of two things being alike. Perhaps the critics who make you somewhat uncomfortable are the ones you should pay attention to.

[paulr]

And guess what: the art critics who I find persuasive seem to be the ones who use the simplest, most elegant language available to them. They know all the big words, but they don't drop them like misguided smart bombs on unsuspecting ear drums (a form of collateral damage).

Couldn't you say this about writers in general? The good ones write simply and powerfully. They don't obfuscate meaning with needlessly fancy words (they dont what?)

Sadly, many critics come from an academic background, which is a kind of insular world of highly educated specialists who talk mostly to other highly educated specialists, and read papers written by other highly educated specialists. A whole dialect springs to life between them. It's a convenient shorthand. It even helps them identify members of their tribe (and to keep out the rifraff). But to outsiders it's just jargon. Or less charitably, it's bad writing. Or much less charitably, it's bullshit.

And then you have the poor artists themselves, who are forced by expectations to write about their work. The chance of them being good writers is slim (hey, we like them because of their pictures, not their words). If they have training in writing it's likely from an MFA program, which will have deeper roots in academia than in literature (see above). And if they have no training, they'll probably just follow the example of all the bad art writing that they see all the time. They're just trying to fit in. And that's where you see the real B.S. ... people using fancy words when they don't even know what they're trying to say.

Finally, an unpleasant secret about art writing in the tradition of Szarkowsky and Robert Adams: it's really hard to do. It's much easier to fill a page with jargon than to write simply and clearly about complex ideas; to effectively use words in the service of images; to be persuasive about just about anything.

[claudiocambon]

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.

Or, said another way, the important thing is conceptual clarity; the relative vocabulary used to express those ideas is a matter of style and choice. I am reading Gombrich's "Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art" right now, and it's a bit thick, but the style is appropriate and elegant; it's just slower going than most other things.

[Nathan Potter]

I'm a fan of minimalism in both words and photographs. I think it is a sign of great skill and craftsmanship to be able to express oneself in language and image in simple terms while at the same time successfully conveying your message to the reader or viewer.

Since Daniel has brought up Szarkowski, a significant name in photography, I would repeat a line of his (Szarkowski) where he discussed the evolution of photography as it differentiated itself from painting. *"The compelling clarity with which a photograph recorded the trivial suggested that the subject had never before been properly seen, that it was in fact perhaps not trivial, but filled with undiscovered meaning. If photographs could not be read as stories, they could be read as symbols". Simple words from the astute master but conveying a clear premise. Such simple language has guided me in searching for images, although I often like to refer to my found images as "icons of reality" but the ideas are similar. The concept is very understandable.

At the same time I would not denigrate the language of sophisticated art critics and the like for using unfamiliar words which have a consistent meaning among the critic community. As in any specialty the novice will only extract meaning and understanding commensurate with the effort expended.

* From Szarkowski, "The Photographer's Eye", MOMA, 1966

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[dazedgonebye]

Perhaps what the artist has to say can only be expressed with sufficient accuracy and nuance by using words and references that are "over my head." If so, I'm pretty sure his work will be over my head too.

I'm simply not worthy.

[Jeremy Moore]

I think one great way to alienate your intended audience is to intentionally speak over their heads.

Yes, but there is also the problem that most people don't know how to critically read and if they have to actually think about what they just read then they call it BS. Then again, I completely agree with Paul because I am in an MFA program and they do push for writing these dense statements, but very little direction is given so the student (who has probably focused on art for their entire college career) puts out this dribble which is not often critically discussed. I recently had to write a 5 sentence "Statement of Creative Research" for a course and this is what I ended up with:

Currently I am creating a new body of large format photographs which expands upon my last major body of work. The previous work looked at the suburban condition enclosed by the major road Loop 288 in Denton, TX. The new work covers a larger working area, the Interstate 35-W corridor, from its northern location in Denton, 85 miles south to its conclusion north of Hillsboro, TX. The encompassment of a larger sample region entails a much greater approximation of the generic North Texas condition, codified by the supplanting of urban and rural environments by an extended suburbia. I am documenting this collapse of boundaries as the demarcations are blurring and the spaces we experience today are forever changing due to a myriad of reasons from economic collapse to the expansion of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Note: this is not an artist's statement, but something a little bit different and focused on what you would write for a grant or teaching/tenure application, but my artist's statements uses similar words. My goal is to write something thoughtful and intelligent that my mom can read and follow (she's not stupid by any means, I just use her as an example because she has a great BS detector) that is also accepted by the art community. I try to lean more towards my mom than the arteez, though.

[nathanm]

I love big words, but that isn't the issue. For me it's a matter of subtext, whether or not the flowery language actually feels honest or not. If you really mean it, then fine. If it's just fluff to make yourself sound fancy then it can be silly. My theory is that nobody really gives a crap about artists statements. They'd care more about it being taken with a large format camera or on film way before any fancy statement! Of course this is all subjective so it's hard to tell.

[Richard M. Coda]

Two of my favorite movie quotes (both from On Golden Pond) sum it up for me...

"I'm pretty good at recognizing crap when I hear it."

and

"You like that word... bullsh!t. It's a good word."

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