My Opera
On Art Critics
Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:04:12 PM
For a long time I didn't actually know what bothers me about professional critics in art, music, literature... I mean; there are many things that one could argue. Yes, they tend to use pretentious language, overcomplicated sentences and descriptions that could be told a lot simpler. And yes; none of them is quite as productive (or creative) as the artists. IMHO even the worst artist is still a bit better than most critics - at least he tried to make something that could only later be criticized, right? Creation always comes first. But that still doesn't capture the essence of it. Because there are critics that did contribute to our understanding of art after all.
Only after I read Susan Sontag's "On Photography" for the second time it became clear to me. Everything that she says is more or less true, even more so, everything is valuable for our understanding of art. But (and that is a big but): is it relevant? Are artists (in that case photographers) really concerned with all what she says or assumes Are they really after all that? Or is it just something that a critic (e.g. somebody who never actually did art) thinks they are.
In my opinion not. What I came to believe, as a creative person, is that most true artists are generally concerned with only one thing: getting it right. Can you remember the time you were arranging family photos on the shelf and none of the arrangements didn't quite fit? And then, perhaps by a sudden inspiration or by pure luck you happen to find the right arrangement so that the shelf finally shined in its beauty and harmony that was never imagined before. You nailed it! You created a tiny island of order in the vast ocean of chaos. You got it right.
I think that is the feeling artists constantly seek in their works. And it takes hard work to get there. Everything else that occupies critics so much is just not relevant.
Only after I read Susan Sontag's "On Photography" for the second time it became clear to me. Everything that she says is more or less true, even more so, everything is valuable for our understanding of art. But (and that is a big but): is it relevant? Are artists (in that case photographers) really concerned with all what she says or assumes Are they really after all that? Or is it just something that a critic (e.g. somebody who never actually did art) thinks they are.
In my opinion not. What I came to believe, as a creative person, is that most true artists are generally concerned with only one thing: getting it right. Can you remember the time you were arranging family photos on the shelf and none of the arrangements didn't quite fit? And then, perhaps by a sudden inspiration or by pure luck you happen to find the right arrangement so that the shelf finally shined in its beauty and harmony that was never imagined before. You nailed it! You created a tiny island of order in the vast ocean of chaos. You got it right.
I think that is the feeling artists constantly seek in their works. And it takes hard work to get there. Everything else that occupies critics so much is just not relevant.
