Wednesday, 9 December 2009 - 1:09 PM EST
Name:
"sally"
Re:"Well, isn't that the exciting part though? When the fertility goddess revered by one culture frightens the culture that succeeds it? When the institutionally lauded salon is overtaken, usurped by the refusés? When values shift and the economy radically changes?"
Oh yes, indeed. I agree "shattered" can apply if we are talking about broad cultural shifts. But the individual critic living through such shifts need not be shattered by them. As you say, that's the exciting part.
Re: "These words of Podro's offer nothing in the way of an argument against aesthetic judgments."
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. The way I understand it, Podro is describing aesthetic judgments, and is not in any way arguing against them. I like this description, but I should mention that out of context the quote could read as if he is dismissing physiological interactions with art and he is not. The book is about the art historical project of reconciling mind and matter.
Re: What interest do you have in reading torqueless (not a word, I know) "reviews"? What interest do artists have in "reviews" by "reviewers" who don't position themselves in front of their work?
I should've qualified the term "reviews." Yes of course reviews can be critical and to my mind they should be (assuming that we are not conflating "critical" with "negative," a necessary distinction that Leah Sandals recently pointed out).
As an artist I have never considered myself the intended audience for reviews written about my work, have never considered that the writer was addressing me personally. The value of any review, torqueless or not, is that it moves the discourse between art and audience into a different public dimension from the immediate art experience, one that uses words to communicate ideas. In this sense, every review is a translation, and every translation involves interpretation, and it is interesting, as an artist, to see how your work might be interpreted.
Re: Who's gonna call it - the reviewer who wants to "leave enough room for all the ambiguity and slipperiness that so much artwork is about" or the one who grabs the tiger by the tail and makes the discerning remark?
That's a false dichotomy. An appreciation of ambiguity and discernment are not at all mutually exclusive, and if they were discernment would be silly.
Re: And how would making this remark show a lack of respect for the volitional intelligence of artists?
It doesn't. Suggesting that the job of the critic is to show artists how to (or how not to) make work does. That's not something I've ever thought you would say, J. But it is something I have heard other critics say.
The only way your construction could possibly be taken as a dis on artists is that a great deal of art is intentionally ambiguous on fundamental levels. So if a critic thinks their job is to come down on one side or another of an active paradox then they are not giving the artist credit for proposing that paradox on purpose. But this is a hypothetical situation.
A note on ambiguity: I like the way neuroscientist Semir Zeki defines it in his writing about art. In his definition, ambiguity is not about imperceptibility and vague uncertainties, but rather the perception of conflicting, irreconcilable certainties.
Re:Isn't that the underbelly of ArtFag's succinct assertion...
Yes I think it is. And I don't agree with him. Criticism as an act of caring? Yes! Because of a desire to see things done "successfully?" Too schoolmarmish for me...critic as disciplinarian...feh.
Re: Your Nehamas quote
Fantastic, I love it! But isn't "If you really feel you have exhausted a work, you are bound to be disappointed" almost the same sentiment as wanting to "leave enough room for all the ambiguity and slipperiness that so much artwork is about"?
