Welcome to the latest long-ish entry of the Art Talk and Other Stuff blog!
If you have any questions or suggestions about this entry, previous entries, future entries, feel free to leave them in the comment section or inbox me on Instagram.
With this entry I will follow up the dick line "If you don't like what somebody tells you during a critique, cry me a fucking river, bro" from the previous entry.
Or maybe not necessarily dick line, but I'm aware it might come off as harsh or "insensitive".
I'd like to address the general negative emotion associated with art critiques, rather than thoroughly talk about the history of art criticism or go thoroughly into what an art critique even is.
Let's start by defining what "critique" means, and also the word "criticism", because as I also mentioned "criticism" is what "critique" sounds like to me. They share the first five letters, after all, so I'm surely not making relationships out of my ass.
Also, words are cool.
And also, it really seems for a while now people ascribe whatever definition they want to a word to better conveniently accommodate their motives just because it sounds good or impactful, and I AM NOT FOR THAT.
Talking/conversing through words is how we communicate and, at the very least, the definition of words must be somewhat standardized (or agreed upon at some point), precisely so we can understand each other and continue communicating. I'm sure you can make your point with the standard definition of words, and if you can't, whatever you're trying to make a point about perhaps needs to be revised, or just find other words.
Surely, you can immediately think of at least one example. I sure as bears shit in the woods can: any variation of "silence is violence". gtfo bro.
Moreover, I am up to my left fucking tit of slogans. You know who else used contradicting, manipulative slogans with deliberately misleading terminology? Big Brother, from George Orwell's book "1984".
"Freedom is slavery"
"War is peace"
"Ignorance is strength".
Hard pass.
And one more thing: the word "slogan" is made up by "sluagh" and "ghairm".
- "Sluagh" is Scottish Gaelic for "horde, crowd".
- "Ghairm" is Old Irish for "shout or cry".
"Cry of the horde"? No, thanks.
I learned this from an old as hell Jordan B. Peterson lecture (here is the entire lecture series linked, because it's really quite interesting and worth listening to he says it in the last episode) and then confirmed it by looking it up, I linked each segment of the word to its definition in case you are skeptical, which you goddamn right should be about everything.
Now that I rode that tangent like Lady Godiva on a horse through the streets of Coventry, let's get to the definition of some words, and ramble on to how they might pertain to art critiques.
Definition for "critique" from dictionary.com:
Definition for "criticism" from dictionary.com:
"- the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
- the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc."
From these definitions, it seems as though both are rather a thorough analysis of something, and through analysis, it makes sense one would find faults, if there are any. It also seems some background knowledge is necessary or at the very least helpful.
If you're going to write a whole ass essay, or if you're going to break something down in order to study it, one first would have to already carry some foundational information to compare with or do some research to have a reference point.
As far as a standard of quality, I would say it forms for the person based on the foundational information and enough research on a subject.
So just like anything can be art (thanks for that, Marcel Duchamp), it seems fair anyone can give an art critique and anything can be art criticism. Although here might be where the threshold of art conversation versus art criticism is, because I am of the opinion anyone can appreciate art and talk about it, no need for any sort of art study or art history knowledge; however, the person who knows about art history, teaches art, makes art themselves, or all of those together, has all that additional information pertaining to the subject. Depending on the situation, the latter's opinion on an artwork might be considered more valuable.
From here on out, this will be mostly based on my opinion and personal experience, so you know.
1. Whatever you think or feel during an art critique, remember the person giving the critique is biased, and so are you
During an art critique what generally happens is one person (teacher, art critic, fellow artist, gallery owner, art dealer) tells an artist what they think about their work, a single artwork or a body of work, and why.
An art critique can also come in the form of an essay published somewhere and not necessarily directed to the artist, even if they are effectively talking about a specific artist's artwork, but it's rather for a reading public.
This art criticism can range from philosophical questions of what even is art to begin with, to a thoughtful description of the work, or an analysis of techniques used to make the artwork (colors used or marks made with brush/pencil), composition and the like, or all of the above.
So far it sounds like art criticism is straightforward enough and has a semblance of objectivity, the way a scientific claim can be filtered through being tested by different scientists and different types of tests to see if they all result in the same thing.
This is but a fantasy in the context of art and art criticism, because art is basically synonym with "subjective", and I personally consider all art criticism to be heavily influenced by the biases and personal taste of the person giving the critique. I'm gonna mention biases a lot, because they're important.
Art criticism is in large part influenced by personal taste (again, this is based on my own very strong impression), this must always be kept in mind by the person giving the critique and the person receiving it, who also has their own personal taste and biases.
I remember a comment by Professor Kurt Kauper during the critique of a collage, in which he mentions his own bias towards collage, because he has a very specific impression of why a collage comes to be. I'm not paraphrasing or quoting, it's just what I vaguely remember of the comment, not trying to put words in the guy's mouth, but his awareness really stuck with me as very sincere and important.
I personally find the awareness of biases extremely valuable, because if you are the one giving a critique, you can choose to try to view the artwork without said bias or mention it to the person receiving the critique of it and permeate the atmosphere with this self-cognition.
It might also help soften the absolute feeling and intimidation which may come with the authority insinuated by receiving a critique from someone with more experience, or a teacher, or someone whose work one likes a lot.
And listen, I'm not necessarily about making an art critique as soft as possible or less intimidating or scary or uncomfortable or even awareness or removal of biases; what I want is try to remove the negativity associated with critiques and just have all parties involved remember they are all regular humans.
(Awareness of biases is still important, as they form how one thinks about something, one's opinions on things, etc.. I know in my case, it has made my life much easier when I keep whatever biases in mind, it doesn't matter if they're physical, like being female, or some childhood thing.
One big example for me, is not liking a person whatever the reason vs not liking what they do. Being aware of the bias against them is extremely helpful for trying to view their actions minus my bias.
Not liking a person =/= them being wrong, for example.
And of course, once one catches these biases, they can be worked on, modified, and removed depending if they're a dumb and potentially intrusive bias, like a bias against a country or a group of people.)
I have big doubts art can be seen with an objective lens, precisely because of the influence of one's own tastes and biases, but this is also exactly what seasons every person's thoughts on art with their own flavor and makes their critique interesting.
Even if a person is judging the quality of an artwork based on a type of composition, they still might personally prefer a specific sort of composition. Or if they're judging based on color palettes, they might favor a specific selection of colors.
Or if they're talking about an art movement, they might seriously like one specific artist of the time and the one artist is their measure against which they compare artworks.
Some examples where one might be able to argue for objectivity in analyzing art are perhaps accuracy of representation (I'd say this is more or less what the atelier and maybe hyper-realist types aim for), and perspective (which seems to have actual rules in terms of making the illusion of depth on a flat surface).
If you happen to find yourself receiving a critique from a person who knows about this stuff, probably pick the hell outta their brain if possible and listen super hard.
2. Why have art critiques? Why deliberately subject oneself to discomfort?
Sometime in my second year at New York Academy of Art I scheduled a critique with a teacher I don't like ("don't" is in the present tense, because I continue to not like them, but if you remember from the previous entry, I had critiques with everyone I could both years), and the person's feedback helped steer my work into the drawings I ended up making for my thesis, basically because they "didn't see" whatever it was I explained about the work at the time.
Listening to art critiques of people who like and dislike one's work in the microcosm of art school tempers one for navigating the difficulties of the art world.
From "micro" to "macro", in art school something like "I don't see the themes you explain conveyed in this drawing", in the art world becomes a rejection letter to the application for a grant or just no reply at all from a gallery you sent work to even though you followed the submission guidelines on their website and you personally think your work would be a lovely fit in their space.
(btw galleries or anything one applies for have no reason to reply unless they accept one's application. Let's not pretend to care for the reason of rejection, this has always sounded to me like butthurtedness at the rejection itself.)
A critique doesn't lend itself to be like a conversation basically by definition, meaning it's more like a monologue where the person giving the critique will do all or most of the talking and you may or may not agree, you may not have time to reply or ask more questions because they have to move on to the next student/artist (this is based on how critique day is at NYAA, where professors give each student about a quarter of an hour and they have a list of several students to visit and give critiques to) or it might be an article about your work, where the back and forth of a conversation is physically impossible.
A critique in any form doesn't immediately have to be taken to heart in any capacity or, frankly, it needn't ever be taken seriously to the point where one changes the work to what whomever has said. I would suggest to let the critique simmer and do other things, think about what you were told.
When one receives critiques, I would say one must evaluate what exactly is the value of the critique as it pertains to one's work and artistic goals and determine the importance/relevance of the critique based on them.
How does one value the person who gave the critique? Does one value their work? Does one even value their opinion? Does one find what they said relevant to one's goals? Did one even understand everything they said and what they meant, or most of it or some of it? Does one dislike the person but their critique actually resounded as interesting and valuable?
Picture all of these questions as a board of knobs and buttons, like an airplane's dashboard, and the answer to each question is what calibrates the importance of the critique.
This is oversimplified, of course.
All the variables and biases brought by the person giving the critique crash into the variables and biases of the person receiving the critique, this merge is infinitely more complex and nuanced than an airplane's dashboard.
However, if you hate what a professor or anyone told you, sit with their words and figure out why you've become upset before even thinking about the contents of the critique. The point of this being to not let anger pollute what could actually be very helpful feedback.
Trying to understand why you got upset will be extremely helpful for this specific instance and future ones, and try to do so being VERY aware of your biases.
Try to view the words without the tone, for example, which is perhaps what actually irritated you, try doing it even without the person, who you simply may not like because you perceive them as uppity.
Did they come off as inconsiderate? Inconsiderate insinuates intention, and it might be you who is ascribing this intention, rather than discerning it's probably your own perception.
Make an effort to wait for when you're not irate anymore to think about the critique again.
Trying to see from the point of view of someone you dislike or disagree with doesn't mean liking them or agreeing with them, and neither does trying to understand the point of view itself (those are all different things), but doing the mental exercise of playing devil's advocate is a very productive and fulfilling practice.
In the context of art, it's extremely helpful, not to mention extremely interesting, to understand why different viewers see what they see.
An art critique is a learning experience, an exercise in thinking about something for a while, and we need as many different learning experiences as possible along with focused thinking; as opposed to being constantly coddled with safety and not having to focus on anything for longer than a few seconds (for example, cuts in videos or the amount of time it takes to scroll to the next post.)
Unlike currently implied by our tense atmosphere, we must have uncomfortable conversations, feel uncomfortable things, and be willing to listen to another person and mull over their point of view.
Receiving an art critique is also part of "things are happening in your brain when you input information and do stuff". The "input" is the critique and the "do stuff" is sitting and thinking about it.
I've had a handful of colleagues tell me a specific line from a critique which stuck with them throughout the years, this line really stung and it tarnishes their overall view of the person who said the line and it sort of becomes everything the person is.
I sure as shit did not tell them "cry me a fucking river, bro", but they clearly were unable to let it go, because sometimes things just hurt.
One isn't supposed to like or enjoy rejection or negative criticism, one must rather become better at handling it.
However, let's talk a little about bad critiques, because such a thing also exists.
I personally consider things along the line of "this is bad and you shouldn't be painting/drawing" to be an embarrassingly lazy critique. As in, I'm embarrassed a fellow human is *that* lazy.
These sound to me like a cop-out instead of making the effort of thinking and explaining why the work is lacking in the person's opinion.
Even if I don't think critiques should be softened, one should make an effort to back up one's statements.
This type of shitty critique is kind of like going to the doctor and one is in a very vulnerable position as a patient, because of incontinence and one is scared and the doctor is supposed to know a ton, and the doctor says something like "you have a weak pelvic floor" or some shit and it's like great, I will just have incontinence for the rest of my life.
There is a whole school of thought which says using certain terminology causes a chain reaction in how the patient will heal and see themselves. It's called a nocebo effect, and "nocebo" is probably the dumbest word on earth, but look it up for kicks.
Also for kicks, here is an article from Harvard Health Publishing about it - Link
Similarly to "you shouldn't be drawing/painting", "you have a weak pelvic floor" is a lazy cop-out instead of trying to figure out why the person has incontinence (incontinence is a symptom of something, so is the allegedly "weak" pelvic floor.)
Giving/receiving an art critique is obviously different from going to the doctor, this sort of critique has no reason to become a terrible chain reaction in which the student/artist effectively stops making art, I mean have a backbone for crying out loud.
If it was me receiving a critique like this, I would discard it as just not worth thinking about, because the person giving the critique gave me zero reasons to even consider.
If you ever find yourself giving a critique, try at the very least to do be helpful and constructive.
EVEN THEN, FURTHERMORE, STILL, AND MORE SO.
Receiving a critique one feels like shit about is perfectly within the densely rich spectrum of experience, which as a whole is still edifying.
To reiterate, I am only interested in removing the foreboding negativity associated with critiques. Even if one perceives them as scary and intimidating, one can still be excited and curious.
Willingly subjecting oneself to discomfort has very positive outcomes, for one, getting through it is already an achievement.
Second, now one knows how it feels, this is more information and more information is good.
Why receive art critiques and deliberately subject oneself to discomfort? Because the art world and life in general are difficult, and they shouldn't suddenly become easy for any one individual or even a handful of individuals.
We must all try to rather be equipped to deal with all ranges of experiences, and we do so by experiencing as much as we can at least once.
3. How did this whole thing start and why do critiques feel like such a big deal? Is there an actual reason in this day and age for a critique to feel like it can make or break an artist's career?
I feel as though the perceived importance and weight of a critique comes in large part from the long history of art critics influencing an artist's career (not actually *long* in the context of history, but go with it). This public consciousness drags on from the 1700s, the French Salon even though many contemporary artists probably give zero shits about the French Salon and many others don't even know it existed.
At the time, however, the art world and artists were very different.
Before art as we know it now and the French Salon, and take this bit as a very informal and neglectfully told historical interlude, artists made "personal" work so other people could see it and then commission work. If the artist scored a commission with a rich or popular person, it had the potential of fueling the rest of their career. This is of course still applicable for artists in a way, but it is entirely optional to strictly stick to commissioned work.
For the French Salon, a popular art critic loving an artist's work them being vocal about it could make their art career. Conversely, collectors were people who could afford the luxury of purchasing works of art. Said collectors would buy art and they would have their status fed, but if an art critic thought an artist's work was shit and was also vocal about it, nobody would buy said artist's work and the people who already got some of their work would be like "wtf bro my status".
This very thing happened with John Ruskin and Whistler who weren't necessarily in the French Salon scene but it's an example of a critique being vital to an artist's career. It seems sort of comical now, but it was a huge deal at the time. Read about it here.
Lately, I can think of maybe one art critic, two at most, and I personally have little interest in any art work they talk about or even their thoughts in general about art, although I might have read some of their articles.
I have big doubts whether any art publication or an article by any art critic currently would have the capability of making or breaking any artist's career, specially with social media and online platforms for selling one's work directly out of the studio.
For some generalized information on what is art criticism and its history which I barely got into, here are two articles I enjoyed reading:
1. Britannica. I liked this one a lot.
2. Wikipedia
Thank you so very much for reading! Do not hesitate to tell me your thoughts or questions regarding this entry, also if you have suggestions for future entries, let me know, in the comment section or inbox me on instagram. See you next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment