What is Criticism?

[Aaron Ng]

What is Criticism? Folks here seem to agree that transcendening is neither encou raged nor acceptable. So what do we discuss on. Take for instance "The Steerage" by Stieglitz. How do we interprete or evaluate it? How do we even judge it and based on what theory or critera? Is the artist's verbalisation to be taken into account? Do critics have the last say about what they critique on? The last few threads seemed to conclude that photographers should just present our photograph s and "shut-up!" So as to leave the general audience to decide if the artworks a ppeal to them. Then what is the job (and justification for) of the critics? Your thoughts??

Aaron

[Chuck_1686]

Some information at:

www.nearbycafe.com/adc/adcmenu/readings/attend1.html

[David Richhart]

The job of the critics is to promote sales of the publications, or sales of the broadcasting airtime, for the companies that pay their wages...

[David Richhart]

OOPS...sorry, I didn't sign that last posting correctly...

[Carl Weese]

Aaron,

I think you are still trying to translate photographs into words and then deal with the words. This misses the point of visual art. If something is best expressed in words, use words. If best in pictures, use pictures. It's up to the audience to perceive or not once the artist has chosen the medium. Verbalizing your experience of visual art is more likely to diminish than enhance the experience.

As for criticism, there are two very different meanings to the term. The first is best exemplified by an honest movie reviewer. Her published opinions are helpful to an audience. They are irrelevant to a creator's efforts (though they may have a strong impact on the creator's financial success). The other model is the accomplished artist giving a Master Class. He coaches the aspiring artist to increase strengths and avoid weaknesses. The process is of no interest whatsoever to the audience, but the result may be.

As for Stieglitz, he's been dead for over half a century and never listened to anyone while he was alive, so the only role of criticism would be on the lines of the first model. Pointing out that Stieglitz made great photographs and that an audience will do well to study and enjoy his work is a great idea. Trying to figure out what "The Steerage" means in words is just a wast

[Doug Paramore]

Aaron: Criticism is akin to listening to the President speak on television, then having all the dumbass reporters get on the air and tell us what he really said and meant because they think the audience is too stupid to listen and understand. In doint the art shows with my photography, I have learned the true value of criticism. If the criticism is good, I get a ribbon and a check from the judges. If bad, I get nothing. I have showed at larger shows and got a first place and then go to another, smaller show, and not even won an honorable mention. Critics have their own likes and dislikes just like you and I have, and their opinion is no more important. Most critics are self appointed or hired by a publication to fill a hole in the page. Tolerate them, but don't put too much weight to what they say.

Regards,

[Walter Beckham]

November, l946

To all critics, pro or con--my work or anyone's work--in photography,painting, sculpture or music, I say (digo yo) you can't explain a Bach fugue. If you could you would explain away its very meaning--its reason for existence.

-E. Weston, The Flame of Recognition

[Jim Galli]

What Doug Paramore said.

They pool their ignorance and see what floats to the top.

Photographs need to stand on their own. I don't buy into crummy photos with huge long narratives about their transcendance. =BS

I do enjoy a sentance or two about where how why.

What really smokes me is some crummy picture and an artist that states "if you have to ask............blah blah blah."

[pat krentz]

There is no justification for critics! The only critic that matters in my work is me. I think the quote by Weston said it quite well. Pat

[Andrew Held]

I think a good critic can bring out ideas about the work in question. These can be ideas that the artist had but couldn't or didn't choose to verbalize, ideas that the artist wasn't conscious about expressing, or ideas that are off-the-wall and appear to have no validity. It can be interesting and even illuminating to hear or read what people say about art. It can also be annoying or trite. Bad critics, in my opinion, think that they have great wisdom to impart - definitive verdicts instead of ideas. They deliver their verdicts from an isolated narcissistic height. The problem with criticism today is that it is too influenced by current New York art scene - the incestuous cicle of collusion between gallery managers, curators and collectors. It has not always been that way in New York, but it is in a bad way now. I don't however think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with criticism. They bring work to our attention, ocassionally help artists hone their vision and can help stimulate debate about art.

[Richard Boulware]

Criticism is OPINION. Some criticism is of more value than other. A critique of photographic work from a novice, is less valuable that criticism from a source of great experience and education. Criticism from experts can be very valuable, and thought provoking. Criticisms are opinions, and like that perticular body orifice..."everybodys got one". If you can't stand criticism then don't show your work or ask for opinions. If hungry for growth...show your work to somone with experience and talent...and get constructive feed back. Any critic worth his/her salt, will give an opinion in a positive and constructive way, to help the artist improve with out destroying the artists ego and self esteem. Remember that self esteem comes from 'self'. It it comes from critics or others, it would be caller "other esteem"! A critiqe of ones' work from a respected artist, can be a learning, positive and growth experience. For those with thin skins.....and fragile egos,...don't bother. Just shoot for yourself, and be happy in your work. No sin in that.

[Merg Ross]

More from Edward Weston in 1948:

"I will not criticize. I think art criticism is the bunk. The only thing critics do is psychoanalyze themselves."

And another "Teaching? That's an entirely different story. It is possible to comment or "criticize" or talk to any young person, face to face, who comes for instruction, or to learn. That's a different story. But criticism through a third person-no! You haven't the right to talk about another person's work unlss you spend as much time on it as he has."

Best holiday wishes to all! Merg

[Walter Glover]

Aaron,

Might I suggest that you go to the LensWork site and order and read "On Looking At Photograhs", a discussion between David Hurn & Bill Jay about just this very sort of topic.

It should prove most rewarding ... especially if someone bought it FOR you as a Christmas present.

Season's Greetings ... Walter

[Ellis Vener]

Criticism is different from discussion and different from teaching, although all can contain elements of the others. Well that's just my opinion!

At it's best criticism opens the eyes of the audience (and sometimes the creator of the work being discussed) to aspects of the work or body of work that the reader or listener was unaware of, and can open connections by placing the work under discussion intoa larger context. Also at it's best criticism can be the equivalent of the child crying 'The emperor has no clothes on!" when everyone else is oohing and ahhing.

At it's worst criticism closes the eyes and ears with obsfucation and snobbery and just shuts off communication in genral.

It is also important for an artist to develop a critical eye to seperate the chaff from the wheat, to search for what is true and honest in his or her own work, and discard and move past his or her false steps. It is also very important for an artist to develop a critical ear for listening to criticism and to ldiscern what is honest and true criticism as opposed to that whhich is facile and shallow.

Those who say criticism isn't important tend (in my experience) not to grow. Even such originals as Weston and Picasso learned to listen to feedback to their work and learned when to just listen to their inner voice and shut their ears to those who didn't get it.

I close with a quote from the fine English songwriter Richard Thompson. Spealking about his fans he once said: "They are worse than professional critics, they are amateur critics!"

[Ellis Vener]

Criticism is different from discussion and different from teaching, although all can contain elements of the others. Well that's just my opinion!

At it's best criticism opens the eyes of the audience (and sometimes the creator of the work being discussed) to aspects of the work or body of work that the reader or listener was unaware of, and can open connections by placing the work under discussion into a larger context. Also at it's best criticism can be the equivalent of the child crying 'The emperor has no clothes on!" when everyone else is oohing and ahhing over the finery they are being instructed to admire.

At it's worst criticism closes the eyes and ears with obsfucation and snobbery and just shuts off communication in general.

For an artist it is important to develop a critical eye to seperate the chaff from the wheat, to search for what is true and honest in his or her own work, and to discard and move past his or her false steps. It is also very important for an artist to develop a critical ear for listening to criticism and to learn how to discern what is honest and true criticism as opposed to that which is facile and trendy -- even if it agrees with what you are showing.

Those who say criticism isn't important tend (in my experience) not to grow. Even such originals as Weston and Picasso learned to listen to feedback to their work and learned when to just listen to their inner voice and shut their ears to those who didn't get it.

I close with a quote from the fine English songwriter Richard Thompson. Speaking about his fans he once said: "They are worse than professional critics, they are amateur critics!"

[Dean Lastoria]

If you want to read good art critisim, read Carter Ratcliff. He is amazing, and you can find his articles in Art In America. Honestly, after spending years learning to critisize literature, I found I prefered creating, that's why I changed over to making texts (wich is what I think a photograph is) rather than being critical, no mater how positive I tried to be -- and it is easier to be a negitive critic. Do you want to give birth to things, or be the social servics person? I got lost in the daze of my own intertexuality relating to my shared subjectivity ... Maybe you should take some critisim courses, or read some critics: Cleanth Brooks, Benedetto Croce's Aesthetica in Nuce is good for removing the fog. Not that I don't live in fog, it's just I'm livng too much right now to see beyond the day to day. The fog isn't a bad thing you know. It's a good place to hang out. Enjoy it ... it obscures the day to day reality wich sometimes sucks. Dean

[Jonathan Brewer]

Picasso, if he wanted to, could paint like Rapheal, and any number of different styles. So when he paints both eyes on the same side of someone's face as their nose, I know he's doing this as a legitimate choice as opposed to this just being a constriction of someone who doesn't know how to paint.

Their are 'con men' and/or 'Charlatans' who have made a fortune selling their 'splattered paint', and even blank canvases as art or abstract art. Much of this work had no frame of reference and was inscrutable, but some knucklehead critics would go ahead and project their thoughts and feelings 'inkblot style' onto these works anyway which gave validation to some of this phony bullshit.

I defy anyone to explain how a blank canvas as art. I won't waste my time going to a museum to look at one, but I will go to the beach for the same feeling without the pretense.

The best of abstract Art had some identifiable reference, and to me when it's so abstract that there's no reference there for anyone but the individual who produced the work it's not Art.

Art is the highest form of communication, if nobody can know what it is, it isn't art, unless you consider splattered paint, doodles, scribbles, and blank canvases art.

In considering legitimate Art, it ought to be possible to judge how well the artist did in his execution of his idea. The Charlatan can't do anything well since he can do it only one way, one gear, and he cons some critics into co-signing this bullshit as valid even though there's no way possible to explain or understand the 'so called art'.

The best critics are the ones who know how to do it. Professional critics may have the insight but not the ability to execute, so they're essentially talking about something they can't do.

People can also have a blind eye culture wise to great works of art. African Art was dismissed as simple and childlike until they asked Picasso about what he liked. Many of the scuptures and works of gold of African Art stem from the traditions of the Yoruba, a religion that is older than Christianity. The power of African Art stems not from an attempt at beauty but as a spiritual force.

Picasso recognized this and said so, and the run was on, African Art is sought after and prized all over the world and has been for years. Shona scuplture which is relatively recent can bring $30,000 a piece.

It's black humor, things that are of the highest order are dismissed, things that are unknowable as art except in the mind of its creator are 'inkblotted' into validation as legitimate art.

The answer here for many is to not worry about it, do it because you love doing it. I agree that if you don't have a thick skin, don't ask anybody about your work. If you're only prepared to hear, "Yeah, I think it's great", asking folks their opinion gonna give you a lot of heartache.

[Ellis Vener]

Joinathan,

read (or better yet, see0 the play "Art".

[Jonathan Brewer]

Ellis....I'll do that. Where can I get it in bookform?

[Jeffrey Goggin]

How does the old saying go?

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, write about it.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts about critics...

[Stuart Whatling]

What a lot of criticism about criticism!

Critics exist because people want to read them. Sad but true. Nothing new either - Vasari and Winckelman were continuing a tradition that was already old when Pliny was writing about Zeuxis and Appelles. They can have their uses though - though personally I may think most of his writings are tosh, where would American art have been without Clement Greenburg?

[Ellis Vener]

"You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him discover it within himself." Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), astronomer and physicist

"The teacher if he is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but leads you to the threshold of your own mind."<B> Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), Syrian poet and painter

<B>"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn." Albert Einstein (1879-1955), physicist

[Ellis Vener]

The origian lquopte (i think it comes from Oscar Wilde) is "Those who can,do. Those cannot, teach." As for the last part of your alleged famous quote Jeffery, you must have been think ing of Dr. Samuel Johnson's aphorism: "Only a blockhead writes for other than money."

[Ellis Vener]

</B> You can illuminate a discussion of Steiglitz's photograph "The Steerage" by a number of lights. Here are three:

Aesthetics. That is a consideration of the qualities of the thing (the original prints), the reproduction you are looking at if you don't haveaccess to he original print, and of course the formal elements of the image: framing, the photographic rendering of light, the relationship of elements inside the frame (composition), and how these add up to what some might call the "emotional gesture' of the image.

Social History. Why did the photographer think it was important to document the crowded conditions aboard this ship? What are the larger historical contexts the image must be considered (as a document of an event) within?

Photographic history. Not so simply put but: Why is this photograph famous? Who was Steiglitz? What, if any, effect did this photograph have on photography (and photographers) after the image was initially 9and continually thereafter) exhibited or distributed?

How do we interprete or evaluate it?How do we even judge it and based on what theory or critera? By our own lights and experiences. there is no grand unified theory that can contain all that can be said about an image, although Garry Winogrand's criteria of a grunted "humph" (a yes) or his dismissive snot is a pretty good approximation of a working UF!

"Is the artist's verbalisation to be taken into account?" Sometimes.

"Do critics have the last say about what they critique on?" Well for them they do, unless they later change their mind.

"The last few threads seemed to conclude that photographers should just present our photographs and "shut-up!" So as to leave the general audience to decide if the artworks appeal to them. Then what is the job (and justification for) of the critics?" The job of (and justification for) critics is to open minds (including sometimes the mind of the artist) to ideas or ways of thinking they might not have considered or been aware of before.(/B>

[Ellis Vener]

iam tryingto kill the bold type but having no success. </B>. Arrgh!

[Ellis Vener]

Ahh!