4 ms·

I have a hard time understanding the concept of "art critic". Art should be something emotional, so how can one person speak on behalf on someone else's emotion

I have a hard time understanding the concept of "art critic". Art should be something emotional, so how can one person speak on behalf on someone else's emotions? I like Marvel movies. I hate some movies that are "classic art". How can someone classify ones as "wonderful" and others as "crappy" - and how Iam i expected to react to that? Trust someone else's emotions? I like Middle Age art and architecture very much. My wife and children are in danger of luxating their jaws when yawning when we visit a MA museum or building. I can understand that, I do the sam ewhen we visit the Orsay museum which I find horribly boring. As "art experts", we would have very different opinions on the artefacts.

paulpauper 5y ago
Critique does not imply criticism. Its more about analyzing the significance, historical significance , aesthetic value, or meaning of art.
- scarecrowbob 5y ago
  Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. A lot of things that I previously had enjoyed have become more boring as I learn more about the world and have greater context. I find people doing that work useful for the same reason I find it useful to have explanatory signs in parts outlining the natural mechanisms of various features.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. In fact, I'd say this is the norm. An accessible version that I'd expect many people have experienced is hearing a genre of music as "noise" or boring or simply not especially pleasant, but then listening to more of it and learning more about it by paying attention to artists and, yes, critics and even (gasp) academics, and coming to really enjoy and appreciate it, and even beginning to be able to articulate why a given piece is especially good. The same holds for painting, for sculpture, for film, for books, for poetry—practically everything. Breezing through an art museum, say, without some pretty serious context for and experience with the sort of art you're looking at, is a great way to have, at best, a small fraction of the optimal experience—maybe still worthwhile, to be clear, but just because a great piece doesn't grab you as all that special your first time through doesn't mean it's wrong. It's unusual for great art not to greatly reward education on the part of the person experiencing it, even if it's not entirely lost on those lacking it. A lot of excellent art may be downright off-putting without that education, even. Look at all the people who complain that most books regarded as "literature" are boring, worthless crap, or that what are regarded as some of the best jazz albums are ugly, random noise, or that a variety of fine art is ho-hum or stupid (maybe some of it is! But people expressing these attitudes tend to apply their opinion far too broadly)
    - scarecrowbob 5y ago
      It may even be the case that the sine qua non of "greatness" in art is that the deeper you look into it (and the network of signifiers surrounding and defining the work) the more interesting it becomes. And that's not to say that "accessible" art isn't 'great'-- the more pedal steel I play, the more jazz I find in country music. It was fun when I was just listening to it, but the more I listen to (some of) it the more useful, interesting musical I find.
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
That's the sort of nihilistic relativism that gives postmodernism a bad name. While taste plays a role in art, and can famously not be judged, art also has aspects that define a ranking, from "good" art to "bad". These qualities are harder to define than it is for judging the long jump olympics, because they cannot be quantified. But it suffice to observe that when people spend a lot of time studying art, they tend to value similar things. One quality I have als noticed with good critics is a tendency to appreciate a far broader range of art (form and era) than "normal" people.
- z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
  postmodernism never had a good name or leg to stand on in the first place
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  I'll take the opposite approach. Children are the best judges of Art. They don't care about historical baggage, they only see beauty. A pile of dead bodies and a naked person crying isn't beautiful, even if it's realistic and has an interesting style. Maybe this view of art is too narrow. Wine supposedly tastes better than juice, despite the strong taste of ethanol. I side with the child on that topic too. Do rules need to be learned to observe art?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
    yeah, "beauty" isn't the only quality of good art. What you're thinking of "art" is just interior decorating.
- jfengel 5y ago
  I believe that the assertion of absolute artistic merit is more dangerous than nihilistic relativism. A critic can be relativist and still be informative. Their goal is not to assign a score to the art, but to communicate about it in an informed, meaningful way. Even if you have a completely different set of values from the critic, you can still appreciate criticism that informs you of what they saw and what it meant to them. Roger Ebert famously hated having to give stars to films, because he was afraid you'd be misled. He could give a move five stars for being a very good slasher film, or action movie, or anything else in a genre he might dislike. Film critics see that aspect in spades, since they have often seen so many movies that even a "good" example will bore them simply because they've seen it all before. But that just gives them a reputation for only being interested in the obscure and outrageous, which appeal only because they're at least different. A good critic can communicate what they see, without having to put an absolute judgment on it, because their judgment is unimportant to your decision to go view that piece of art. What you want is a preview of what that piece might mean to you, a thing established by your relationship to the critic. Some critics write for the audience of people who may go see a piece, and others write for posterity -- the first draft of art history. Either is fine, though they're different modes. This is a postmodernist view of what criticism means, and my point is to show that it doesn't have to be nihilistic. Art still has meaning to you, or not. But the art critic's job isn't to rank it, but to talk about that meaning -- and there's a lot to say. A nihilist just wouldn't say anything at all.
sevagh 5y ago
I have a discomfort about people showing off their consumption habits or tastes. The other day I read a sentence like, "I admire a person who listens to tasteful music, does their research and has a carefully curated music hobby" or something. As if there's a pride or effort to be had in being a "more discerning" passive consumer.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  There's "showing off", and there's having "pride" and putting in "effort". I don't think these are the same. It does take effort to become a more discerning (even if passive) consumer. That doesn't make you a superior person in some broader sense, and I'd also be uncomfortable with someone showing off about this. But taking some (mostly innder) pride at putting in the work? Why is that a problem?
  - sevagh 5y ago
    >(mostly innder) I suppose the problem is when it stops being inner, and it starts spilling outward.
burntoutfire 5y ago
The critics are for people who have more refined taste and don't enjoy strictly commercial movies - so, it's ok if you don't get the critics, as they're not their audience.
itronitron 5y ago
The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily set a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily set a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst. Most art criticism is for museum shows, where the work is not for sale.
  - itronitron 5y ago
    That the artists' work in a museum is not for sale only increases the value of it.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Does it? And value to whom? The work has no sale value, because nobody is selling.
      - itronitron 5y ago
        You might be interested in the book, 'Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siècle Europe' by Robert Jensen. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029269/marketing-modernism-in-fin-de-siecle-europe https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029269/ma...
wolverine876 5y ago
Here's how I approach art criticism: It used to be intimidating for me, because I worried I was failing when I didn't understand some 'great' art, or when I liked a less appreciated piece. Art isn't technical writing; easy understanding isn't the goal. It's made for exploring and growing; if I already knew it all and understood it all, it wouldn't be art (arguably); it certainly wouldn't be the art for me. I don't see art experts "classify" art as good or bad; they aren't scoring art like an Olympic gymnastic performance. What they do is provide a way of looking at a piece of art that may open your eyes and show you things you might not have seen, like a tour guide to ancient Rome. The guide necessarily makes value judgements about what is most worth seeing, which is helpful to me - if I chose by myself, I wouldn't chose nearly as well. And the guide can give me context and perspective and point out details and patterns that I might not have noticed. The guide has a lifetime of studying and touring Rome; I just visited for the week. When I read an art expert say, for example, that a piece is a 'great art' and I don't grasp it, now I think: There's something here I'm missing, something to find that's wonderful. I don't always find it, sometimes it takes decades; there's no rush. I've learned to see much that I couldn't before, and it's indeed been wonderful and life-changing, and I wouldn't have looked in many of those places without someone who had already been there telling me about it.

paulpauper 5y ago

Critique does not imply criticism. Its more about analyzing the significance, historical significance , aesthetic value, or meaning of art.

scarecrowbob 5y ago
Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. A lot of things that I previously had enjoyed have become more boring as I learn more about the world and have greater context. I find people doing that work useful for the same reason I find it useful to have explanatory signs in parts outlining the natural mechanisms of various features.
- handrous 5y ago
  > Exactly-- a lot of things that I found boring became much more interesting once I had some more context to understand what is happening in a a given work of art. In fact, I'd say this is the norm. An accessible version that I'd expect many people have experienced is hearing a genre of music as "noise" or boring or simply not especially pleasant, but then listening to more of it and learning more about it by paying attention to artists and, yes, critics and even (gasp) academics, and coming to really enjoy and appreciate it, and even beginning to be able to articulate why a given piece is especially good. The same holds for painting, for sculpture, for film, for books, for poetry—practically everything. Breezing through an art museum, say, without some pretty serious context for and experience with the sort of art you're looking at, is a great way to have, at best, a small fraction of the optimal experience—maybe still worthwhile, to be clear, but just because a great piece doesn't grab you as all that special your first time through doesn't mean it's wrong. It's unusual for great art not to greatly reward education on the part of the person experiencing it, even if it's not entirely lost on those lacking it. A lot of excellent art may be downright off-putting without that education, even. Look at all the people who complain that most books regarded as "literature" are boring, worthless crap, or that what are regarded as some of the best jazz albums are ugly, random noise, or that a variety of fine art is ho-hum or stupid (maybe some of it is! But people expressing these attitudes tend to apply their opinion far too broadly)
  - scarecrowbob 5y ago
    It may even be the case that the sine qua non of "greatness" in art is that the deeper you look into it (and the network of signifiers surrounding and defining the work) the more interesting it becomes. And that's not to say that "accessible" art isn't 'great'-- the more pedal steel I play, the more jazz I find in country music. It was fun when I was just listening to it, but the more I listen to (some of) it the more useful, interesting musical I find.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

That's the sort of nihilistic relativism that gives postmodernism a bad name. While taste plays a role in art, and can famously not be judged, art also has aspects that define a ranking, from "good" art to "bad". These qualities are harder to define than it is for judging the long jump olympics, because they cannot be quantified. But it suffice to observe that when people spend a lot of time studying art, they tend to value similar things. One quality I have als noticed with good critics is a tendency to appreciate a far broader range of art (form and era) than "normal" people.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
postmodernism never had a good name or leg to stand on in the first place
deregulateMed 5y ago
I'll take the opposite approach. Children are the best judges of Art. They don't care about historical baggage, they only see beauty. A pile of dead bodies and a naked person crying isn't beautiful, even if it's realistic and has an interesting style. Maybe this view of art is too narrow. Wine supposedly tastes better than juice, despite the strong taste of ethanol. I side with the child on that topic too. Do rules need to be learned to observe art?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  yeah, "beauty" isn't the only quality of good art. What you're thinking of "art" is just interior decorating.
jfengel 5y ago
I believe that the assertion of absolute artistic merit is more dangerous than nihilistic relativism. A critic can be relativist and still be informative. Their goal is not to assign a score to the art, but to communicate about it in an informed, meaningful way. Even if you have a completely different set of values from the critic, you can still appreciate criticism that informs you of what they saw and what it meant to them. Roger Ebert famously hated having to give stars to films, because he was afraid you'd be misled. He could give a move five stars for being a very good slasher film, or action movie, or anything else in a genre he might dislike. Film critics see that aspect in spades, since they have often seen so many movies that even a "good" example will bore them simply because they've seen it all before. But that just gives them a reputation for only being interested in the obscure and outrageous, which appeal only because they're at least different. A good critic can communicate what they see, without having to put an absolute judgment on it, because their judgment is unimportant to your decision to go view that piece of art. What you want is a preview of what that piece might mean to you, a thing established by your relationship to the critic. Some critics write for the audience of people who may go see a piece, and others write for posterity -- the first draft of art history. Either is fine, though they're different modes. This is a postmodernist view of what criticism means, and my point is to show that it doesn't have to be nihilistic. Art still has meaning to you, or not. But the art critic's job isn't to rank it, but to talk about that meaning -- and there's a lot to say. A nihilist just wouldn't say anything at all.

sevagh 5y ago

I have a discomfort about people showing off their consumption habits or tastes. The other day I read a sentence like, "I admire a person who listens to tasteful music, does their research and has a carefully curated music hobby" or something. As if there's a pride or effort to be had in being a "more discerning" passive consumer.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
There's "showing off", and there's having "pride" and putting in "effort". I don't think these are the same. It does take effort to become a more discerning (even if passive) consumer. That doesn't make you a superior person in some broader sense, and I'd also be uncomfortable with someone showing off about this. But taking some (mostly innder) pride at putting in the work? Why is that a problem?
- sevagh 5y ago
  >(mostly innder) I suppose the problem is when it stops being inner, and it starts spilling outward.

burntoutfire 5y ago

The critics are for people who have more refined taste and don't enjoy strictly commercial movies - so, it's ok if you don't get the critics, as they're not their audience.

itronitron 5y ago

The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily set a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst.

wolverine876 5y ago
> The "art critic" is there to foster consensus on the appreciation of the art so that the market can more easily set a price tag, like an erudite stock analyst. Most art criticism is for museum shows, where the work is not for sale.
- itronitron 5y ago
  That the artists' work in a museum is not for sale only increases the value of it.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Does it? And value to whom? The work has no sale value, because nobody is selling.
    - itronitron 5y ago
      You might be interested in the book, 'Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siècle Europe' by Robert Jensen. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029269/marketing-modernism-in-fin-de-siecle-europe https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029269/ma...

wolverine876 5y ago

Here's how I approach art criticism: It used to be intimidating for me, because I worried I was failing when I didn't understand some 'great' art, or when I liked a less appreciated piece. Art isn't technical writing; easy understanding isn't the goal. It's made for exploring and growing; if I already knew it all and understood it all, it wouldn't be art (arguably); it certainly wouldn't be the art for me. I don't see art experts "classify" art as good or bad; they aren't scoring art like an Olympic gymnastic performance. What they do is provide a way of looking at a piece of art that may open your eyes and show you things you might not have seen, like a tour guide to ancient Rome. The guide necessarily makes value judgements about what is most worth seeing, which is helpful to me - if I chose by myself, I wouldn't chose nearly as well. And the guide can give me context and perspective and point out details and patterns that I might not have noticed. The guide has a lifetime of studying and touring Rome; I just visited for the week. When I read an art expert say, for example, that a piece is a 'great art' and I don't grasp it, now I think: There's something here I'm missing, something to find that's wonderful. I don't always find it, sometimes it takes decades; there's no rush. I've learned to see much that I couldn't before, and it's indeed been wonderful and life-changing, and I wouldn't have looked in many of those places without someone who had already been there telling me about it.