I'll stop the train right now and start by admitting how boring the Criticizing Art text book readings are compared to the much more fascinating assigned articles. I couldn't get through reading the first five pages without getting an odd feeling of being rubbed wrong by what the book describes as "Professional Critiques", who are described as not liking the term "critique" either, due to the misconception that all criticism is negative. I do not have these ill feeling because I believe what they have to say is completely negative, I personally enjoy having my work critiqued and I like to receive both negative and positive feed back, sometimes giving me a new perspective on my work.
However, the criticism I usually receive is done by the instructors and students who have also gone through the same timely process I did to finish a project. They can understand what efforts were needed to complete a piece, and they can recognize and appreciate the efforts a classmate went through when working to their fullest potential... and when slacking off.
Perhaps it is this classroom atmosphere I am used to working in, but I can't help but wonder how the labeling of a writer as a "professional critique" came about. Many people will say that art is a process, inspired by an idea and worked into a visual creation. So, the end product doesn't always visually summarize the events that went into it's making. Is it still appropriate for someone who does not fully understand the processes, ideas, and technical details that went into the making of a piece to review that art and publish it?
Pretend you have an assignment to review a piece of art work. What would you have to say about the painting pictured below, without any information about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment