Art critics suck...

[Figuremod73]

I totally understand and appreciate peoples opinion on art to a certain point but there are still those that seem to play favorites. I refer more to critics who (like the first post stated) think certain artist can do no wrong no matter the work. Was EVERYTHING Pacassio did truly that exceptional? Its sort of like creating a name brand in the art worl.
(I guess a good argument could be made that dispite the critics Kincade was a name brand)
I ones I truely cant stand are those who get paid for critiques. Like those who critique movies for studios just for the quotes.

I didnt know he had trademarked that term. Kinda lame.

[ctc]

>So in other words, Picasso is to hands as Rob Liefeld is to feet?

....feet AND hands! Liefield is a GENIUS!!!!

*cough*

I think the big thing is that most folks think what they LIKE is “good.” Which is fine, but makes any kind of discussion difficult ‘cos there isn’t often a lot of reasoning to back it up; or worse, a lot of ad-hoc reasoning. So the trick to remember is that (with rare exception) when you discuss “good” with someone you’re not really having an objective discussion on the subject matter but instead a subjective comparison of your personal perspectives.

Objective discussions are tough ‘cos you’ve got to compensate not only for taste, but experience as well. One of my personal peeves is when someone goes on about disliking something they’ve never actually partaken of. You don’t gain any useful insight on the material OR the other person’s perspective.

Don C.

[megoat]

Just because Kinkade's (which I'm personally not even a fan of) work doesn't move them or isn't to their personal tastes doesn't mean it doesn't move others or isn't any good. As they say, art is subjective and an opinion on it is just that, an opinion. Not worth more than anyone elses. When "professional critics" lavish praise on something they personally like and then use their status or clout to try to delegitimize and completely dismiss someone not to their tastes, like Kinkade, they are just a bully. Those are the kinds that raise my ire. Otherwise, I don't care what they have to say one way or the other.

Well, while it's true that everyone is entitled to an opinion, this idea that ALL opinions are equally valid is complete hogwash. There is such thing as an informed opinion. Critique that is well reasoned and argued always outweighs those that are not. If somebody makes a flippant statement like "Leonardo Da Vinci was a terrible painter", who would take them seriously? Sure, that person is free to form their own opinion but are you saying that their opinion is equally valid to the myriad of scholars, artists, academics and art historians who would say otherwise?

[samurainoir]

Here's what it comes down to once you commodify art in whatever format as a decorative item (vs commercial art, which can evolve into the realm of so called high art as well once we passed the sixties).

It is a luxury item, and attaching a price tag to it denotes status.

Once the realm of Patrons, now that you enter the free capitalism of our world today, like any industry it creates a need for pitchmen, which are the commercial galleries, and consumer advocates, which are the critics. Like any other industry, these folks set themselves above the average consumer as "experts", and can make a buck from it because people often prefer to have taste, style and fashion dictated for them so that they can literally buy into it. Having recently reacquainted myself with my city's store front art scene, it's a terrific racket if you can play the game, but local small gallery owners are always vulnerable to the fickle tastes of an ever changing public and a shifting economy.

The one thing I can say about contemporary art... More often than not, you are not really just buying the physical aesthetic item, but the story behind it, and the conversation that can ensue when you repeat the story.

[Werewolf]

Well, while it's true that everyone is entitled to an opinion, this idea that ALL opinions are equally valid is complete hogwash.

On something subjective as art they like, yes it is valid. No such thing as an objective art critic. We all have our tastes and biases. To say otherwise is just elitist.

Saying "Leonardo Da Vinci was a terrible painter" is just being dismissive. It's not a critique. Same as the "professional" art critics that dismiss someone they don't personally like.

[samurainoir]

. Kinkade fans probably don't like Mark Rothko - and that's cool with me - but postmodern art isn't the same as classical art - who says we can't all just like different things?

wandering off into a tangential field for a moment, I caught a play called Red down at Canstage a couple of months ago and enjoyed it a great deal. Particularly since it wonderfully spurs conversations around the nature of art, based on a controversial and troubled figure who used colour as his subject. If it comes back, you should totally go check it out with your lovely Mrs.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...VfoCDU01z5fY4Q

[rche]

For you art is limited to your emotional response only?

nope: I didn't say that. dancing is sometimes done thoughtfully, and sometimes just for fun. intellect and emotion can intertwine, tho they don't have to.

conversations can run along similar paths.

[Brazoo]

On something subjective as art they like, yes it is valid. No such thing as an objective art critic. We all have our tastes and biases. To say otherwise is just elitist.

But I don't think any critic I've ever read/heard claims their opinion isn't subjective.

When you listen to sports commentary they're not just handing the mic over to any random spectator, the guy talking is a guy who's made sports a big part of their life's work. Isn't that the same thing? Is that elitist too?

wandering off into a tangential field for a moment, I caught a play called Red down at Canstage a couple of months ago and enjoyed it a great deal. Particularly since it wonderfully spurs conversations around the nature of art, based on a controversial and troubled figure who used colour as his subject. If it comes back, you should totally go check it out with your lovely Mrs.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...VfoCDU01z5fY4Q

That looks great - I'd see that for sure!

I picked Rothko as an off hand example because he's a guy I gained appreciation for over time - and I recently saw a doc on TVO that gave me a lot more excitement for him too.

Well, while it's true that everyone is entitled to an opinion, this idea that ALL opinions are equally valid is complete hogwash. There is such thing as an informed opinion. Critique that is well reasoned and argued always outweighs those that are not. If somebody makes a flippant statement like "Leonardo Da Vinci was a terrible painter", who would take them seriously? Sure, that person is free to form their own opinion but are you saying that their opinion is equally valid to the myriad of scholars, artists, academics and art historians who would say otherwise?

That's totally it!

The old cliche "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is a fine opinion to hold - but you have to consider the fact that putting time into learning more about fine art might change the way you form opinions about it and make you appreciate art on different levels.

Let's take Megos - I don't think you're going to value the opinion of someone who is looking at a Mego for the first time on the same level as an expert who runs the Mego Museum - but for some reason it seems fashionable to think this way about people who are experts in art.

nope: I didn't say that. dancing is sometimes done thoughtfully, and sometimes just for fun. intellect and emotion can intertwine, tho they don't have to.

conversations can run along similar paths.

Haha - well, sorry if I'm dancing around and not getting your point.

I thought you were explaining that writing about art was not useful, because appreciating art is a "matter of the heart", which I took to mean that art was only emotional.

Obviously I think what the art says directly to you is important - but I think I've gained a lot of insight about art from other people.

[Werewolf]

Let's take Megos - I don't think you're going to value the opinion of someone who is looking at a Mego for the first time on the same level as an expert who runs the Mego Museum - but for some reason it seems fashionable to think this way about people who are experts in art.

If you want to use Megos.

A first time collector's favorite figure might be Spiderman. A long time collector might like Captain America. Just because the long time collector likes Captain America the best doesn't mean his personal taste in Megos is better than the beginning collector. Dismissing the beginning collector and their choice in Spiderman is wrong and elitist. Knowing more about the history of Megos doesn't make his personal choice of Captain America better. Which figure is "better" is subjective.

[megoscott]

Critics are concerned with things that do not concern the average person, things like where something fits in art history. Picasso may not have drawn hands better than the hundreds of thousands of more skilled draftsmen before and since, but he and his contemporaries came up with ways of seeing and describing the world that had never been considered.

Someone like Kinkade is SKILLED at rendering light and form and that impresses a lot of people. But it's something that has been done since the Renaissance. He was unquestionably a skilled representational artist and an even more skilled businessman. But he wasn't creating anything new, he was creating visually rich and dazzling romantic pictures that appealed to an enormous number of people.

Personally, I hated his art and have no respect for it whatsoever.

[megoat]

On something subjective as art they like, yes it is valid. No such thing as an objective art critic. We all have our tastes and biases. To say otherwise is just elitist.

Saying "Leonardo Da Vinci was a terrible painter" is just being dismissive. It's not a critique. Same as the "professional" art critics that dismiss someone they don't personally like.

Wow, I sure wish I had you as a college instructor! All opinions are equal! No matter how poorly reasoned! Yay!

So are you saying that there is absolutely no objective criteria as to why we study the great artists of painting, music, literature etc? This is all an exercise in pure subjectivity? Mark Twain = Louis L'amour? Norman Rockwell = Rembrandt? Lawrence Welk = Beethoven?

Nobody is denying anybody their personal taste, but don't you think when one enters the arena of public discourse there is an elevated level of discipline and responsibility? You can call it "elitism" or whatever but responsible art criticism is just an extension of academia adhering to the same rigors of scholarship and study.

If somebody enjoys a Thomas Kinkade painting, that is surely their right to do so. But if you're going to present your opinion to others you better be ready to defend it if you intend to be taken seriously......And believe me, I'd love to read a convincing essay as to the cultural and artistic relevance of Thomas Kinkade!

[Werewolf]

Wow, I sure wish I had you as a college instructor! All opinions are equal! No matter how poorly reasoned! Yay!

I will politely ignore your snark.

And again on matters of personal taste, one opinion is not better than anothers. To use Megos again, liking Mego Spiderman over Mego Captain America is not poorly reasoned. Same as liking Degas over Renoir is not poorly reasoned. It is a matter of personal opinion and each choice is just as good.

A critic trying to dismiss and delegitimize something not to their personal taste is not being remotely objective or even offering a true critique. They are only dismissing it based on their own personal tastes. In other words, they are just being a bully.

I love art history. But I personally have no use for an art critic telling me what to like or how I should think or feel. I will decide for myself.

[Edit]

I don't personally believe art is about or should be about having some rigid omnipresent hierarchy that the works and their meanings have to be filtered down through. It's about what it says to the individual and how it made them feel. Not being told what to think or what to feel.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I LOVE “The Creeping Terror.” Especially the MST3K version. It’s one of my all time favourite movies, but I’d never say it was a good movie. But for me, it doesn’t HAVE to be.

A film critic might say it’s a bad film, and provide all sorts of reasons why. (They might turn around and say it’s a great film.... check out the extras on the MST3K “Robot Monster” disk for a surprising example of this.) What makes the critic’s opinion valuable isn’t their conclusion; wether a film/book/whatever is “good.” The real value is in the reasoning behind this conclusion. The juxtaposition of a work in time, against society, compared to the standards of the medium, and public expectation. That’s the meat, THAT’S where you learn something.

What (ideally) makes a professional critic worthwhile is the repertoire of material they can compare a work to. Their store of info isn’t limited by time, taste, location.... preferably not by genre or subject matter as well. ‘Course, often this isn’t the case. A professional critic has to keep their audience happy, and comparing “Boobs, Guns and Explosions 2" to the works of a silent era Hungarian film maker won’t enthrall the majority of moviegoers. (No matter how well reasoned the comparison.) It becomes easy to dismiss such a view ‘cos it doesn’t appear to have any relevance to the viewer. “I dunno what this clown is whining about.... it had boobs, guns AND explosions! It was AWESOME!!!!”

....which is the problem of separating “like” from “good.” It’s why most people make for poor reviewers. “I like it!” Is fine, but it doesn’t do me any good. I don’t gain any insight on the work OR the commentator. But few of us are ever required to explain ourselves. Merely espousing an opinion will galvanize those who already agree, and shoo away those who don’t. Hell; even professional critics suffer from this. (Dismissing popular entertainment solely on the ground that it IS popular, for example.)

Don C.

[Brazoo]

I want to clarify one thing - I'm not trying to attack people who like Kinkade in ANY way - I'm trying to defend the fact that I enjoy art criticism and explain what I like about it.

If you want to use Megos.

A first time collector's favorite figure might be Spiderman. A long time collector might like Captain America. Just because the long time collector likes Captain America the best doesn't mean his personal taste in Megos is better than the beginning collector. Dismissing the beginning collector and their choice in Spiderman is wrong and elitist. Knowing more about the history of Megos doesn't make his personal choice of Captain America better. Which figure is "better" is subjective.

Yeah, but if a guy has ONLY see the Spider-Man Mego and the Captain America Mego he might pick a favorite based on that - but if he sees ALL the Megos his opinion and his criteria might change too - so knowledge is still a factor.

This all gets a little muddy, because I'm trying to simplify my opinions for the sake of this discussion, but I don't think this is black and white stuff - appreciating and defining quality in terms of art is complicated stuff that contemporary artists and critics discuss all the time.

Having said that, I think I'm not being clear because I think we're a little stuck on defining what "better" even is. It could mean pure esthetics with no other information - but I'm saying sometimes that isn't art's main objective.

When people say something like "Warhol isn't a good artist because he can't draw well" to me it's like someone saying "Spider-Man Mego isn't a good toy because it doesn't look realistic". I think you have to understand what a Mego's function is before you can appreciate it. The appeal to Spider-Man Mego to me is that it doesn't look realistic - to me it's charming and playful. It's the same way with Warhol, you have to understand he isn't an illustrator - he's using Curt Swan's illustration - but he's trying to say something different than Curt Swan said with it.

(By the way, that Superman piece isn't one I've ever heard called a classic Warhol. It's late Warhol and not in his peak period - so it's a little like judging The Rolling Stones based on the album "Bridges to Babylon". It's also meant as one part of a series - so it wasn't a stand-alone image, either. The meaning of the piece probably changes when you see it as part of the series - but I admit I don't like that piece either.)

My point before was that a guy can look at a couple of Megos for the first time without any prior knowledge and tell you which he likes best - that's fine, and I'm not dismissing his opinion - but I'm not going to keep visiting a website about Megos by that guy. I want to come HERE.

[vintage spideyfan]

Sorry, this is a brilliant thread, but I have to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAPbZDit5_w