art art art photography

[ray robertson]

If that's what you truly think, then your understanding of the term 'fact' is different from mine and any further discussion would be pointless without defining precisely and agreeing upon a meaning of the word 'fact' as used in this context.

[beeman458]

"Outside critics, hopefully, have a wealth of training, education and observation, as well as a natural analytical capacity. That's their job."

 

You've just described the bases for two things, lack of orginal thought and the origin of bias based upon the subjective nature of the ruling junta.

 

Remember. There is no such thing as a valid critique cause "It's all good maaaan."

[beeman458]

When someone brings before one of the so called experts a piece of "artwork" and it's declared to be "valid" and of the highest order, then it's been ordained.

 

The images, I'm thinking of, are images created by the most uneducated among us, so context is not possible, under four year old created "art."

 

Shall we discuss "art" created and declared to be on a high order, that which is created by chimps or elephants?

 

If "art" created by chimps, elephants and pre-schoolers can be declared by so called "educated experts" to be of the highest order, one rightfully should challenge the veracity of their declarations and the bases that they make these proclamations if their validity/purpose is expected to be maintained; respect.

[h._p.]

"any further discussion would be pointless"

 

Yup. I can live with that.

[shadetree407]

i was wondering when you'd be showing up thomas :))

 

>> this is clearly absurd <<

 

 

ray,

 

if you put things in black and white without any grey zones, then yes. however... it would be absurd to think in black and white when the world around us and human perception works in a near infinite continuum of grey zones.

 

we are perceivers. perception is a filter. criticism is an extension of perception - an outward expression of what one thinks. because criticism is a function of what has been perceived, it is therefore a filtered thought and opinion and the critics do just that. they filter as a function of what they like and dislike.... often drawn upon by comparison of one artist to another. are they right? only if the masses (such as yourself) say they are and empower them to be right.

 

how come you place the critics up on an ivory pedestal?

[ray robertson]

..."When someone brings before one of the so called experts a piece of "artwork" and it's declared to be "valid" and of the highest order, then it's been ordained."...

 

Quite so, and therefore it's quite in order and even necessary to ctiticise the critics, but such criticism has little value if the person making the criticism is uninformed on the subject. Anyone who is not brain dead, mentally retarded or completely dumb can express a like, a dislike or an indifference in a few short words. "What do you think of this?" "Huh! Don't know and don't care." Is that an opinion equal to any other?

 

The phenomenon of so-called abstract paintings from elephants and chimps sometimes fooling the so-called art critics is an interesting one. It says a lot about the current state of abstract painting and this deserves a discussion in its own right. There are lots of people who still think Picasso was a complete fraud but they tend to be people who have spent little time studying his works; people who never get beyond an initial averse reaction like the school boy who finds Shakespeare boring and pointless.

[ray robertson]

.."we are perceivers. perception is a filter."..

 

Lost,

 

That may well be true, or at least a valid way of expressing it. But I'm still having trouble finding any logic in your argument. Are you implying that all filters are equal?

[shadetree407]

an artists' lot is a lonely one, for the world will always sit in judgement when all you are trying to do is share your very soul.

 

and often those judging, don't even possess a soul of their own, let alone, the creative capacity to make art that bears their own spirit. a critic is usually driven by envy, first, and a mongering for power, second. somehow, they know they hold your very heart in their hands. and for some of them, it elevates them to make you feel just a bit inadequate.

[Allen Herbert]

how I know is my work "art",

 

What do you think?

 

Crap or Art.......use your own mind.....or are you that sad you need a love in.

[ray robertson]

..."and often those judging, don't even possess a soul of their own, let alone, the creative capacity to make art that bears their own spirit. a critic is usually driven by envy, first, and a mongering for power, second. somehow, they know they hold your very heart in their hands. and for some of them, it elevates them to make you feel just a bit inadequate."...

 

Maybe their critique is their creative work of art and they are sometimes driven by a 'spirit' of envy and power. There's a lot to be said for the Nietzschean view that a Will to Power is at the basis of all human motivation.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The stuff folks bring to printers is mostly always art. Always if they are a fine art type; or have an attitude. These images maybe sunsets, dogs, kids, anything shot with the customers #1's camera. The other customer #2's stuff is what customer #1 sees as borderline art; or just snapshots; or total crap.<BR><BR>Fine art printing is known in the shop as fine fart work. It all smells great to the producer. :) <BR><BR>When customer #1 and #2 are at the front counter and one leaves; often one will mention the other chaps work is total crap; or really not art. This is very funny. <BR><BR>The terms art and fine are are so overused, that they hold real no meaning at times. A fine art customer just may want alot of attention to the print job given, and micromanage every detail, which radically adds to costs.

[ray robertson]

.."When customer #1 and #2 are at the front counter and one leaves; often one will mention the other chaps work is total crap; or really not art. This is very funny."..

 

And these people aren't even critics. Talk about being driven by envy and malice! Real critics are usually much more eloquent.

[shadetree407]

no, all filters are unique - that is to say, all perceptions and beliefs are unique from the personal level to the group dynamic level (aka herd mentality).

[beeman458]

Quite so, and therefore it's quite in order and even necessary to ctiticise the critics,..."

 

And by what standards do the critics critique and by what standards are the critics critiqued? Sans any standards, there's no validity as it's all subjective and objectivity is out the window.

 

"...but such criticism has little value if the person making the criticism is uninformed on the subject."

 

And the mear act of requiring education is the same thing as stating that one must bring their "junta" required biases to the table or they're not a valid critic. I might even qualify as a "Conservative" critic. Does that automatically invalidate the validity of my criticisms considering the secularist nature of the contemporary Postmodern art world? :) Would my bias be at play?

 

Here's some interesting thoughts which I have posted prior, in regard to critics and the art world.

 

First the critic's critic. My all time fav, Clement Greenberg.

 

http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/

 

A write up in regard to what the critics had to say about the Impressionists after their first showing in 1874.

 

http://artchive.com/galleries/1874/74rewald.htm

 

How did the critics receive Manet?

 

http://www.mystudios.com/manet/raven/manet.html

 

Would one wish to compare what Edward Weston had to say on the subject of manipulation of the image and Photographic Impressionism; Sieglitz anyone?

 

The point of the above is that all these so called educated critics are often wide of the mark in their pronouncements if the effort has "original" thought that doesn't comply with their preconceived notions of what is and isn't.

[h._p.]

"but such criticism has little value if the person making the criticism is uninformed on the subject."

 

And exactly who decides who's informed and who's uninformed?

[ray robertson]

.."And exactly who decides who's informed and who's uninformed?"...

 

Well, not you it would seem, HP. It makes little difference to you whether or not a person is informed or not. His opinion is of equal value to anyone elses. But generally it's educational institutions of various types, a concensus of opinion amongst peers and a reputation and demonstration through works and writings etc.

[ray robertson]

..."The point of the above is that all these so called educated critics are often wide of the mark in their pronouncements if the effort has "original" thought that doesn't comply with their preconceived notions of what is and isn't.""...

 

Thomas,

 

That's a general point that applies to all of us without exception. The human species has an enormous talent for making mistakes. In that regard it makes little difference who we are. We are all destined to make mistakes. Some are trivial, like cutting your finger; some more serious like getting caught driving under the influence, making a wrong career move, marrying the wrong person etc, and some are really serious depending on the responsibility of a person's position in society. I heard a rumour the other day that George Bush had made one or two serious mistakes. Just rumours though, I'm sure.

 

Art critics are certainly not immune from making mistakes in assessing a work. One could analyse why they might have had such a lapse of judgement in hind sight, but without their efforts in pointing out to the general public the value of certain works, such works might often be forgotten. My gut feeling is that appreciation of the works of Van Gogh, for example, are not intuitively accessible to the public at large. Without someone 'championing' such works later on, they'd be lost forever.

 

I'm leaving today on a photographic trip for a few weeks so will have to continue this later. It's an interesting subject.

[beeman458]

"But generally it's educational institutions of various types, a concensus of opinion amongst peers and a reputation and demonstration through works and writings etc."

 

Ahhhh yes, the ruling "junta."

 

And when there's an idealogical shift in power, the left is out and the right is in, then there will be a new reputation to be developed:) When the power was Athens, the dance was Greek and then the Romans, then the Huns, then Venice and then the French and then it was Paris to New York via Surealism. Can anyone tell me where Beijing is located? :)

 

http://www.newchineseart.com/

 

Check out the photo section.

 

Art history is such a terrible thing to repeat:)

 

You have no idea how egocentric and power mad these learned artistic opinions are. Oh! And I can assure you, they ain't talking to me. :)

[beeman458]

"That's a general point that applies to all of us without exception."

 

That line works if you're part of the unwashed masses such as I but as an expert, not-ta chance is that an acceptable principal.

 

That's being used today to explain the killing of people by doctors due to misapplication of meds. Sorry Doc., that's 2nd degree manslaughter due to neglect, not a simple oversight and should be treated as such. The doctors should be doing serious time for the deaths, not saying that they'll look into it.

 

I apply that sort of thinking to the art world and it's so called learned critics. If you can't be reponsible for your pronouncements, then step aside and let someone in who will be.

[twmeyer]

second degree manslaughter for bad criticism? Your sense of scale is a little off. And your Bill O'Reilly / Fox and Friends attitude adds a delightfully comic note to your outrage... "ruling junta" paranoia included. <p>You think this all important all powerful "junta" doesn't know where Beijing is? Then you obviously aren't in this decade yet, as your chronological listing of Very Important Places in the art world indicates. If you think some cabal of white euro-centric academics is calling the shots in the art world, you've got no idea... <p>Professional critics, good ones, are like filters in that they sort data and present it in a context of type and compare it to materials of a similar configuration, or materials that share similar sources, attributes or applications. They compare things that are similar, and contrast disimilar works in order to illuminate the characteristics of both. <p>Opinions are not the currency of a good critic, but they are fun at cocktail parties and internet forums... t

[beeman458]

"second degree manslaughter for bad criticism? Your sense of scale is a little off. And your Bill O'Reilly / Fox and Friends attitude adds a delightfully comic note to your outrage... "ruling junta" paranoia included."

 

I love it when my comments are taken out of context. Nobody, stated your above. Doctors, for misapplication of meds should, as experts, be nailed with manslaughter for their negligence, or they shouldn't be in the business but for what ever weak kneed reasoning, they're not.

 

Anybody that holds themselves up to be an expert should be held up to a higher standard then that of the commoner. I'm an expert in my field, I hold myself to the standard that folks hire me for my expertise, not my ability to error. It's not my sense of scale that's off.

 

"You think this all important all powerful "junta" doesn't know where Beijing is?"

 

Again, that's not what I stated. You notice that I traced the power structure of art through time and the next art power base and the values by which it will judged will come out of the new power base, Beijing. I suppose you don't like the simplicity of my trace; as if it matters?

 

"Then you obviously aren't in this decade yet, as your chronological listing of Very Important Places..."

 

Not places, bases.

 

"...in the art world indicates. If you think some cabal of white euro-centric academics is calling the shots in the art world, you've got no idea..."

 

You funny man as you wrote the above. Your above, academics, is only a part of the triad. Try writing past your emotions. What's really happening here is a power struggle in that you have a problem with conservative critique. Think about it before reloading and firing off another salvo of your form of criticism. "They're either with you or against you." Sound familiar?

 

"Professional critics, good ones, are like filters in that they sort data and present it in a context of type and compare it to materials of a similar configuration, or materials that share similar sources, attributes or applications."

 

Which serve their trained bias's and no one else's. That's why I posted what I did earlier as the critics have made their bias's well known in the past as they're doing in the present. Save the shovel for the uninformed or those who agree with you.

 

"Opinions are not the currency of a good critic, but they are fun at cocktail parties and internet forums... t"

 

You actually believe that a critic's pronouncements are anything more than an educated (biased) "cocktail" opinion?

 

Write an acceptable definition of Art, which critics will set their pronouncements by. Sans a standard of definition, any pronouncements are subjective, at best; as in an undefined state, objectivity can't exist.

 

Wishing you well with your O'Reilly relationship.

[beeman458]

Stopped by your web site Tom to learn a bit more about where you're coming from in regard to art and criticism. Found it a bit ironic that your so ridgid and posed and I the opposite, iconoclastic. You'd think it would be opposite:) Many of your portraits reminded me of Serrano's most recent offerings. Any influence there?

 

My nature, (your work is excellent) rigid upsets my stomach considerably as if I had been put in a condemned man's room and the key thrown away. I see WA cause that's how I see in real life. My images, iconoclastic as that's my conservative nature; go figure, an anarchist in conservative's clothing:)

 

I made an image on Friday, nothing like your efforts, but reflective of my efforts and while doing so, I didn't make an image that I saw while on site. The image that I didn't make and may go back and create would have been a stitched hundred and eighty degree pano of wide open nothingness; only sand, sea and foggy sky. No people, birds, buildings or anything, just sand, sea and foggy sky; the ultimate in anarchy:)

[shadetree407]

maybe you can post your picture here so everyone involved can get out their critiquing radar guns :))

 

i mean.... is it so human nature to critique, that when the pros step in to do it for us, the we are relieved of duty to think and react for ourselves (not talking about book publisher critics that filter submissions).... i mean like.... art is personal. why does anyone need a critic to tell them what to feel? isn't art about feelings and statements that invoke feelings.... and then isn't that a personal thing?

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>You notice that I traced the power structure of art through time ...<P></I>Actually you

didn't do any such thing. you pointed out some dots but failed to make

any connections between them. That is what an informed critic does. There are also

uninformed critics too.

[beeman458]

"That is what an informed critic does."

 

I figured I was posting to an informed crowd. Maybe I was wrong. :O