I've
a lot of experience critiqueing (mainly in my online classes) and some
(limited) experience as a juror and I began to wonder about the role of
the juror vs the role of the art critic. Too often when faced with the
yes/no response from a juror we tend to think of the juror as a
critic…but there are actually many differences between the two. The
juror has only the y/n binary response sorting the quilts presented into
two (metaphorical!) piles only...also we never know why one quilt was
chosen, another rejected. Whereas the critic has a much broader role
which may or may not (according to the critic, they vary) include
indicating whether or not they think the art is “good” or “bad”.
Unfortunately, there are many jurors but few critics in the art quilting
world.
Critical reviews are valuable to both the
general public and the particular artist. although some artists choose
to disregard (or consider invalid) a poor review, in fact, a
thoughtfully written review, can help the artist gain insight into their
own work, and enable them to see it in both a wider historical and
geographical/cultural view. It’s hard to step back from an individual
piece and see how it fits in with both one’s own body of work, and that
of work being produced by other artists.
One of the
goals of art criticism is to introduce the work to a wider audience –
not just the art going intelligentsia, or the magazine-buying quilter,
but everyone – all classes, ages, occupations and levels of society. A
lot of people out there still think of quilting as a bedding medium, not
an art medium – they are truly surprised when it’s suggested that a
quilt can hang on a wall! An art critic would act as a public educator:
art can be paint on canvas, clay formed into vessels, glass hanging in
light, fiber on a wall. I met a well educated woman just yesterday who
told me that quilting was a lost art because nobody hand quilted
anymore!
Today there are many journals of art criticism
offering a wide variety of reviews about art from many different
angles. We can learn so much about ourselves as well as increasing our
art knowledge from looking at art, examining our reaction to it, and
reading about the critic’s (hopefully more broadly educated)
reaction. I enjoy reading the short critical reviews in magazines
like
Art in America,
for example. Some writers focus on describing the work – perhaps in
ways I had seen, or perhaps not. Others compare the work to other
artists..which can lead one to follow a trail that broadens and has many
side trails! Some offer value judgments with which one might agree or
disagree – but all the reviews make you spend more time thinking about
the art.
Most critics feel that the phrase “art should
speak for itself” is a cliche. They suggest that art is strongest when
it forces the viewer to engage with the artist. The work should entice
one into conversation, but not be a direct obvious advertising-like
statement that leads one to put up the shutters, rather than peer in
through the window! (o yes the glory of the closely stitched mixed
metaphor!) Stay tuned!!! I don't want to be hit in the face with the
obviousness of your image, I want to be intrigued enough to want to
stay and figure out what is going on for myself…intrigue me, entice me,
question me and pull me in…
A critic, of course, may
have his/her own agenda. Clement Greenberg was famous for his desire to
drive a revolution bringing change and progress to the contemporary art
world – he has been called the “Moses of the art world” – feeling that
he was the one with the vital set of rules on stone tablets tucked under
his arm….but today’s critics are less didactic though alas, often very
dense in their writing. Greenberg felt that one couldn’t
intellectually determine one’s response to art: that one should follow
one’s automatic response with bravado and nerve and then work hard to
“determine the difference between good and bad”. One of the exercises
I have done in my workshops is to show very good and very bad art -
(IMO of course!) - not stating what I think of the work, allow a
discussion to take place - if you think it's good (or bad), then tell us
why....
Other critics have sought to show the public
the connection between a society, its culture and its art. They feel
that the art should communicate about that culture rather than adhere to
specific aesthetic goals (which can often render the art as dated by
“fashion” within the art world). All seek to educate us, and to
encourage us to spend more time with art. I think that this is very
difficult for today's quilters - how to hold onto the tradition and at
the same time make one's work relevant to today's culture? I find
myself doing one thing or the other, and entering the work into
different shows bearing in mind the particular bent of the juror.
Criticism
has been defined as using language to explore visual images: trying to
clarify one’s thoughts, emotions and understanding about a particular
work. It should help us to see why we respond to this landscape, and
not that one – when they may both be views of the same river. Why is
this one more effective than that? From this kind of criticism, we can
learn how to strengthen design, how to make better art, as well as how
to understand and enjoy good lasting art – rather than art that is like
candyfloss, a quick cheap flick of sweetness that soon grows stale.
The critic’s task is to put into words the effect that a work of art
can have upon us. Thus the importance of the dance of communication
between artist, the critic and the viewer.
I wish we had more
art critics writing about art quilts, and didn’t have just those yes/no
responses, all of us - art quilt makers, and viewers and collectors -
would be better served.
So, what d’you think? Can the emphasis be
switched from sport (running races with people coming in first, second,
third etc) to education (leading us to a broader understanding of what
the medium is about and what it can do)?
If you have been.....thanks for reading…. all comments Very Welcome! Elizabeth
Posts
