Art Critique (appreciation) tutorial

[sabotage]

I was discussing art critics with another member earlier and it got me to thinking, "what qualifies one to be an art critic?". As an engineer I never had the opportunity to take art appreciation classes in college except for the humanities class that was required of everyone. I would call art a major interest of mine, even a passion. I know what I like, I have strong opinions of what is good and bad. I have never been too artistic though, so I don't really understand what it takes to make art.
I know this forum has alot of talented artists and, dare I say, "talented" collectors that contribute. I was hoping some of you may attempt to impart some knowledge on me. What are those art appreciation classes all about?!
I think it was Travis Louie who said something to the effect that low brow needs a strong art critic to legitimize the genre somewhere on this board. I assume to tell people what is good and bad, cause it really seems lately that people are buying low quality stuff. (cross over with the economy thread) How would an art critic begin to do this? How do they legitimize themselves?!

[roqlarue]

I'm curious what you mean by saying people are buying "low quality" work.

[sabotage]

I thought I was asking the questions!
I'm just repeating what everyone was saying on the "poor economy good for art" thread. Hell, I dunno.

[crazyreesie]

Jan 27, 2009 20:23:16 GMT -8 sabotage said:

I have never been too artistic though, so I don't really understand what it takes to make art.

I consider myself fairly artistic, and I don't really understand, either. I know I'm missing one key ingredient--dedication.

Jan 27, 2009 20:23:16 GMT -8 sabotage said:

How would an art critic begin to do this? How do they legitimize themselves?!

I'd like to know this as well. Does anyone on this board write for an art publication? I'd like to hear about it.

Thanks in advance.

[thecreep]

Well, an art appreciation class is really just a teaser. Something that you can take that broadens your ideas of art. Provided the professor is good, you should be able to leave this class and have a better appreciation of art as well as why artists do certain things and what they may be "going for". This type of class though is really like taking an intro computer course, it gives you just enough knowledge to get it all working, but not enough that people will be taking their computer to you to fix. If you get what I mean.

This is why I am going for a Phd in Art History. I want to learn more, as much as I possibly can. This led me to start my site as well as freelance writing for a few mags and sites like SFWeekly.com. I'm still not where I want to be yet, but I'll get there and each thing I do teaches me more and more about art. Taking painting or drawing courses helps as well.

I think the most important thing when it comes to being an art critic, is respect. "Who is this to be telling me what is good and what isn't?" (although its not as simple as good or bad) You don't need a phd in art history but it does give you more knowledge about the subject, iconography, inspirations and so on. Take for example Harry Knowles and his site Ain't it Cool News. Not now, but there was a time that his opinion was very respected, but controversy came that he started to give good reviews for good treatment (hotels, money, etc). So the respect dropped down a bit.

Whether you are a harsh critic or not, I think it all boils down to what gives you the ability to critique work to a wide audience. What accomplishments have you made. A good critic or likewise is really like a teacher. The teacher had to learn somehow. So whether its in classes or out there doing it and working with artists they are learning, writing, curating shows and building connections.

And as far as low-quality art, that is pretty subjective. There is some art that I don't fancy quite often, but I have yet to see low-quality work enter a gallery. There is work that doesn't emotionally or vially hit me, but I am still able to stop and see what it took for that artist to make the work and I appreciate that.

[roqlarue]

Also- bear in mind there is a difference between being an art critic and being an art writer. I do a lot of art writing where I am basically just relaying info about the art and artist- not making a critique or judgement of the work. Critics "decide" what is good or bad based on a vast knowledge about the art world, art history, and aesthetics. Most of them live and breath art and often have at least a masters in art. You have to REALLY know your stuff. You can't just take a class and become one. They become legitimate by the quality and integrity of their work- it's a long road, unless you fall into a job with an extremely influencial publication. Being a great critic is probably as hard as being a great artists. Unfortunately there are many bad critics just as there are "bad" artists.

[thecreep]

Yeh I honestly think I would rather just write about art. Or just teach art history. Being a critic doesn't sound like too much fun.

[sabotage]

thanks for the responses! that was the type of conversation I was looking for. I, of course, am not looking to switch careers into art critic, I just want to look at art more critically. Like when I drink wine, I want to be able to distinguish the greats from the ripple. I do believe taste is acquired, not completely instinctive.

[thecreep]

Jan 28, 2009 15:52:56 GMT -8 sabotage said:

thanks for the responses! that was the type of conversation I was looking for. I, of course, am not looking to switch careers into art critic, I just want to look at art more critically. Like when I drink wine, I want to be able to distinguish the greats from the ripple. I do believe taste is acquired, not completely instinctive.

Well, if you really want to learn aside from taking art history classes, you could get some art history books and read up. Or better yet, starts painting and drawing. What better way to gain appreciation for something? Once I started oil painting my respect for those that use oils raised even higher.

[crazyreesie]

Jan 28, 2009 9:23:04 GMT -8 roqlarue said:

I do a lot of art writing where I am basically just relaying info about the art and artist- not making a critique or judgement of the work.

Do venues for this type of writing exist outside of the few big magazines and a handful of decent blogs? I haven't found much about modern/pop art in newspapers or the major print mags (save the obligatory Shep and Banksy stories). There's a noticeable absence of art coverage even in Chicago, but I may simply be looking in the wrong places.