Kristin's Response

I was really bothered by the critic Storr saying that they would go into studios and not say anything, and silence didn't necessarily mean he didn't like the work. I realize the point he makes about needing time to take in the work and develop thoughts on it, but I feel like the whole point of a critique is feedback. And not necessarily god feedback, but I definitely agree with other people who have said it needs to be helpful or encouraging and show where things can be improved if needed. Also on that note though, I feel like artists should remember that they don't have to take all the advice given at critiques and do what people think they should. The art is ultimately the artists, and while the critics can (and should) comment, the artist can choose to do something about it.

I really thought the article's comments on mutually beneficial relationships between critics and artists were the most interesting, and how some who have developed relationships don't necessarily talk about a certain art piece but rather about an idea in general that they are both interested in.

On that note, the question posed on which would be better to have...a critic critiquing or an artist critiquing, I would have to say that they both would most likely be beneficial. I feel that it would be easier to have a critique with a fellow artist because they go through the same struggles and have unique ideas to help work through hard problems. However, a critic is good from the viewpoint of non-artists, and also from a more "meaningful" (as in looking for the meaning in) work and relating to the public and works in the past.