Ooops, missed the 7am deadline. Oh well, here's my responses anyway:
Kasey 1) I think confusing criticism with disapproval stems from education- the nineties were notorious for the "Every kid's a winner!" movement where you received "participation" trophies and whatnot (myself included- I still have little green buttons that say "GOOD JOB- FIELD DAY 1996 for the long jump and 100km dash that I failed). The only "feedback" teachers offered was red ink on written papers. It seems that this has unconsiously made criticism seem like a bad thing. Personally, I have wretched self-esteem and see critique as a way to improve myself. In reality, artists (and people in life) should see it the same way. An art critic, your boss, whatever- they are people in the same field as you who most likely just want the best you can offer. Why not give it to them? Criticism should always be constructive but I can see where it may not be. Storr's idea of silence sort of reflects that; his is neither constructive or destructive, now is it? All in all, I think it is best to develop a thick skin (thanks Steve) and just roll with the punches.
JoAnna 1) I actually agree. One of my favorite quotes is two simple words: "Artists lie." (Dr. Losch) When I present my art, I know full damn well what I intended with it but I'm not going to say everything. Because that's not what art is. "Art" is the feedback you get from those who do not have your emotional baggage, background, thought processes, style, and memories. It's a two-fold war for every work of art: what the artist put in, and what the onlooker pulls out. If the artist has a finely-crafted, cookie-cutter spiel planned, one wonders if they are in it for this two-fold process... It feels forced and sort of superficial. Sometimes if an onlooker is being really pushy it's fine to spout the same thing as they are looking for "the answer" and you're trying to hide it, but with an art critic I assume that should not be the case. What I'm trying to articulate is that the answer should be amorphic and atuned for the situation; you know, not the same every time?
However, in regards to the best artists being in their late twenties that are still questioning things? No way- I find that actually offensive despite the fact I am twenty-one. I can name so many artists who started long after that age. Age is just a number baby; it's all about intention.
Caitlin 3) I definitely agree with Gilbert-Rolfe on that. A very awesome man once said "Talent borrows, genius steals." Why? Because it's true. It's not plagarism if you make it your own, so I do not see the problems with kidnapping something that will ultimately make one's art better. Isn't that why we are forced into the same building together- to bounce ideas off each other's heads like racquetballs? Granted, I don't want someone ripping off my entire darn process, but I am not going to be offended if they pick off an idea or two. It's partially flattering. Also, with as much OUT THERE that is OUT THERE... Who's to say you kidnapped it from a colleague? I mean, it's probably obvious if it is the dude sitting right next to you, but when dealing with subject matter and themes, it is infinite. (Though, I am a pirate so this may be a little biased...)
Meg Christian
No comments:
Post a Comment