art criticism is not a democracy
Tonight I read a piece from the Guardian called this. "Art criticism is not a democracy" - hmmm.
"You might think it's arrogance or snobbery that leads me to criticise a work of art, and maybe it is – but I'm still right," says Jonathan Jones.
His thoughts are interesting, as are some of the comments. Are critics born not made as he suggests? Is being brutal the right way to review new art?
Here's a reader's comment:
"I think you might do better to explain your reasoning why you believe something is good art... to help your readers out." This is more in the line of how I recall we were talking about reviewing, write your story of why you respond as you do to the work. Which means you will be right in your telling. Not right in an absolute way as in 'righter than anyone else'.
See what you think - you don't see a lot of comments on how one might choose to review and I think it's a conversation worth continuing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/jun/25/art...
well you have to congratulate
well you have to congratulate him on his honesty - he sure is an arrogant bastard. of course art criticism is not a democracy - but equally, an opinion is neither true (as he claims his is) or false - it's an opinion. & my opinion (neither true or false) about criticism is that it's a discussion; or at least it should be - a discussion where everyone is entitled to hold their own opinion, to explain it or not, & to respect that others have different opinions - whether they be true or false.
perhaps someone be born a critic, but that doesn't exclude others from becoming critics. & as for "the right way to review new art" - nope, there is no right or wrong way.
that's my opinion, anyway! : )