Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
"You Can't Critique Art"
At times I have conversations or receive comments that serve as the nucleolus for additional thoughts and posts. When this happens I rarely identify the person who initiated the thought process because my statements are not intended to be a personal rebuke or condemnation. Rather they are the thoughts and arguments I have developed after the initial response and rebuttal or they are a more in depth treatment of a statement I made or a conclusion I reached.
That a long winded way of saying:
"When I attack you personally, I will use your name and you will be the first to know it. If this has not happened, I have not attacked you personally."
Recently I was told that you cannot critique art because art is opinion. Well, that is just flat wrong. Not the art is opinion part, but the critique part. Perhaps it is just my background but when I state an opinion, I have a reason behind it. It may not be logical, but there is an identifiable reason for me saying what I have. It is my belief that this hold true for everyone because if you are stating something, there has to be a reason behind that statement.
The reason may be as simple as "I was hungry" and that may be a fine reason to explain why you made a sandwich. It is not so fine a reason to explain why you may have killed 12 people and sold their bodies to a kebab place in Russia. Each opinion is a decision and we can critique decisions for their viability and their adequacy in meeting the stimulus that initiated the decision that ended in the opinion.
Let's bring the world of art into the discussion more fully. Modern art is misunderstood by many folks. Modern art, to include writing, is not a devolution of style to the basic emotional response. For those who do not have young children that is a tantrum, not art. Modern art is the product of studying the rules of art and the creation of art and then consciously removing or deliberately violating the rules for effect and presentation. Let me put it another way. If you don't bother to study the medium you pretend to define, how do you know you are not just reproducing existing style?
After all, it doesn't take much imagination or thought to invent the wheel and axle today, it's kinda part of our existence. Yet we have people every day, people who do not study or train or review or, God help me, think, who believe they are creating GREAT WORKS OF ART merely because they don't know it's already been done and done much more competently and with greater talent.
It's tiresome to watch.
Critique of art is the critique of intent. What was the intention of a created piece? Did the structure support this intention? Did the word or color or sound choices support the message or feeling or tension that was the focus of the attempt? Sometimes art is created just because. Because it's striking, because it's someone's birthday, because the sun is hot, whatever. And that is fine but that is also hobbyist material and not to be confused with art created in a more deliberate manner.
Using myself as an example, I hacked out a work in 15 minutes:
http://www.neopoet.com/blog/29066-inspired
I also spent a long, long, long time getting the tone and structure right for another piece:
http://www.neopoet.com/node/12134
According to the "You can't critique art" crowd, these two (2) works are equal, which is complete and utter bullshit.
The former is a syllable true re-cast of an existing song and took so little thought I could barely believe it. The latter, well the latter was the product of thought and revision and planning and patience and a sustained level of effort and it is a much better piece.
Because what people have forgotten is that a critique of the art is not a judgement of the artist. And I do not care if you feel every spasm of creative effort is an individual masterpiece or that your art is like your children or any of the other excuses I hear. The bald fact is that very few of us will ever be published seriously and fewer still will see a dime from our efforts and fewer still of the fewer still will have their work held up as worthy of reading in five (5) years, not to mention 500,
And some people are discouraged by this and seek solace in the praise of the equally discouraged. I see it as inspiration and though I may well ultimately fail, I plan on making the attempt and putting in the level of effort required to be a serious writer.
If you do not, no problem, just stay out of my way.
That a long winded way of saying:
"When I attack you personally, I will use your name and you will be the first to know it. If this has not happened, I have not attacked you personally."
Recently I was told that you cannot critique art because art is opinion. Well, that is just flat wrong. Not the art is opinion part, but the critique part. Perhaps it is just my background but when I state an opinion, I have a reason behind it. It may not be logical, but there is an identifiable reason for me saying what I have. It is my belief that this hold true for everyone because if you are stating something, there has to be a reason behind that statement.
The reason may be as simple as "I was hungry" and that may be a fine reason to explain why you made a sandwich. It is not so fine a reason to explain why you may have killed 12 people and sold their bodies to a kebab place in Russia. Each opinion is a decision and we can critique decisions for their viability and their adequacy in meeting the stimulus that initiated the decision that ended in the opinion.
Let's bring the world of art into the discussion more fully. Modern art is misunderstood by many folks. Modern art, to include writing, is not a devolution of style to the basic emotional response. For those who do not have young children that is a tantrum, not art. Modern art is the product of studying the rules of art and the creation of art and then consciously removing or deliberately violating the rules for effect and presentation. Let me put it another way. If you don't bother to study the medium you pretend to define, how do you know you are not just reproducing existing style?
After all, it doesn't take much imagination or thought to invent the wheel and axle today, it's kinda part of our existence. Yet we have people every day, people who do not study or train or review or, God help me, think, who believe they are creating GREAT WORKS OF ART merely because they don't know it's already been done and done much more competently and with greater talent.
It's tiresome to watch.
Critique of art is the critique of intent. What was the intention of a created piece? Did the structure support this intention? Did the word or color or sound choices support the message or feeling or tension that was the focus of the attempt? Sometimes art is created just because. Because it's striking, because it's someone's birthday, because the sun is hot, whatever. And that is fine but that is also hobbyist material and not to be confused with art created in a more deliberate manner.
Using myself as an example, I hacked out a work in 15 minutes:
http://www.neopoet.com/blog/29066-inspired
I also spent a long, long, long time getting the tone and structure right for another piece:
http://www.neopoet.com/node/12134
According to the "You can't critique art" crowd, these two (2) works are equal, which is complete and utter bullshit.
The former is a syllable true re-cast of an existing song and took so little thought I could barely believe it. The latter, well the latter was the product of thought and revision and planning and patience and a sustained level of effort and it is a much better piece.
Because what people have forgotten is that a critique of the art is not a judgement of the artist. And I do not care if you feel every spasm of creative effort is an individual masterpiece or that your art is like your children or any of the other excuses I hear. The bald fact is that very few of us will ever be published seriously and fewer still will see a dime from our efforts and fewer still of the fewer still will have their work held up as worthy of reading in five (5) years, not to mention 500,
And some people are discouraged by this and seek solace in the praise of the equally discouraged. I see it as inspiration and though I may well ultimately fail, I plan on making the attempt and putting in the level of effort required to be a serious writer.
If you do not, no problem, just stay out of my way.