|
Post by hector23 on Apr 23, 2009 9:07:37 GMT -8
Hi Everyone,
I have posted occasionally here and there but this is my first thread. I am wondering if anyone here is aware of a blog or critic that deals with this genre of art.
There are plenty of great sites for checking out new art, keeping up to date with shows and general championing of the aesthetic but I can't seem to find a lot of actual criticism (positive and negative).
Really looking for someone that has a good knowledge of art in general and these practitioners and is unafraid to say this sucks or this is great.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Apr 23, 2009 10:35:35 GMT -8
As far I know there arent any sites like that right now. It's all pretty much positivity, which isnt bad, but many writers like Calvin Tomkins and Robert C Morgan have stated many times, there needs to be critics from within any scene to help expose the art to a larger part of the art world.
|
|
|
Post by hector23 on Apr 23, 2009 10:40:32 GMT -8
I agree that criticism will bring a broader range of people in. Perhaps this would be a good idea for a new blog. I have been considering doing something in this vein for a while now, but think it would be good to incorporate a few different voices.
|
|
leroy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by leroy on Apr 24, 2009 6:02:52 GMT -8
I think that is a great idea for a new blog. I'd be pretty excited to see something like that come along. It's funny...I generally have a pretty low regard for art criticism, and I think it's mostly nonsense, but with none of it at all it seems like there's really no record of progress in the genre, history, division of sub-genres, important themes, etc. Even without criticism of any kind, this is a growing part of the art world, and I think that it's because it's so immediate to the viewer. Intent is more obvious, and pop-surrealism is so adept at delivering a coherent message. Also, artwork produced by a skilled and knowledgable artist has an appeal that doesn't need the spin that enema paintings, or big rectangles of color do. I really feel like pop-surrealism's time is coming, and there will be a time not too far away that a lot of very serious people will feel very foolish for allowing themselves to be led to believe that what we call high art now was ever taken seriously. There IS something out there that is more than a slavish recreation of reality, or the opposite extreme, which is nothing more than a prank that has gone on way too long. Pop-surrealism offers worlds created in artist's minds that have color, and depth, and their own created reality. It allows artists to present a unique vision that can be beautiful and skillfull, without the cliches of representational art. There really isn't anything else like it, and it deserves to be taken seriously as the artform that it is. ....so yeah. I'm hoping that you go ahead with this thing.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Apr 24, 2009 7:20:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Apr 24, 2009 8:50:38 GMT -8
That's a nice little opinion piece. I like this part:
"It really is time to stand up for what is good against what is meretricious. And it really is possible to find examples of excellence as well as stupidity. In other words, this is a great time to be a critic - to try to show people what really matters.
Yes, there's a staggering volume of mediocre art being talked up by fools. But there are real talents and real ideas too."
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Apr 24, 2009 10:13:59 GMT -8
I thought this might be appropriate to post for fun- this is what Robert Williams wrote for his essay in Pop Surrealism. Here he is talking about talking to an art academic about Lowbrow...
"The question was: How do you inform an extremely well-versed and perceptive art historian that, despite her extensive academic background, unbeknownst to her, lying coiled like a cobra at her feet is one of the most aggressive, vital, and overlooked art movements since Pop Art? How do you simply paraphrase fifty years of undocumented art evolution into a concise explainable statement, while keeping a straight face, to an expert who might be a little suspicious? This is what I told her: “I belong to a rather loose-knit group of artists that, because of a fifty-year dominance of abstract and conceptual art, have been left isolated from the more conventional academic mainstream. All of us, with few exceptions, function in the craftsmanship-based realm of representational art. To better understand this, you have to realize that we gain our source material and inspiration from some of the most illustrious, colorful and controversial influences and graphic traditions that one could possibly emerge from.” “We spawn from story illustration, comic book art, science fiction, movie poster art, motion picture production and effects, animation, music art and posters, psychedelic and punk rock art, hot rod and biker art, surfer, beach bum and skateboard graphics, graffiti art, tattoo art, pin-up art, pornography and myriad other commonplace egalitarian art forms. And all are simply dismissed and treated with condescension by the formal art authorities. I ended by saying: “I am not alone. I stand with hundreds, if not thousands, of like-minded artists. And enough of us exist to justify our own personal periodical (Juxtapoz magazine), which stands third in all art magazine sales.”
|
|
|
Post by COOPER COLE on Apr 24, 2009 14:57:37 GMT -8
^ awesome quote. I want to put it in vinyl letters on the gallery window, people in Toronto are slow to catch on
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 14, 2009 12:12:17 GMT -8
I have been thinking about adding art criticism to the Creep Machine site. I am an on the Phd track for Art History so this is pretty much what I do all the time anyway, might as well add it to the site.
I am pretty apprehensive though as most of the time people dont seem to like critiques and would just rather stick with the constant back-slapping. Bu I firmly believe that not only is this a scene filled with exciting ground breaking art, but it is important enough to justify talking about in a critical way.
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jul 14, 2009 12:28:14 GMT -8
Do it!
|
|
|
Post by sabotage on Jul 14, 2009 12:55:29 GMT -8
I love the idea, if nothing else it will get the dialog rolling and a more critical thought process for readers of your site.
Stay true.
How will you deal with sponsors of your site? Its a tougher question than it seems. You have probably become friends or at least acquaintances with several artists in the scene. You must have your favorites. You will have to ask yourself if you can in fact stay true. There seem to be several voices looking for this in the genre, but IMO there are few that would be able to break their close ties to friends and collegues to be an effective critic. I'm looking forward to your effort though. Good Luck! We need the service.
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Jul 14, 2009 13:43:26 GMT -8
Another thought- being an art critic isn't just saying "this is good, this is bad or derivative"... you had better have *serious* back up to whatever you say. A deeply thorough knowledge of art history in general (like say, a Master's in it) and a thorough knowledge of THIS scene is imperative, or you'll get laughed off the stage, rightfully so. However, art writing is a different animal...that can be either just the facts or opinionated but I think it's important to distinguish art writing vs art criticism. That said, it'd be great to have someone versed in art discuss this scene in an open, informed way.
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jul 14, 2009 14:21:27 GMT -8
I think most here say nothing if they do not care for a show or artist. (polite silent criticism)
Why not do a poll critique with multiple questions about a show. Pro & Con questions offered. #1 Was this show outstanding? #2 Was this show alright? #3 Did this show blow chunks?
And so on....
Include a comment box at the end. This way everyone can participate without being called out. And the artist might not take it so personally & maybe get some good suggestions/feedback?
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 14, 2009 15:24:51 GMT -8
I love the idea, if nothing else it will get the dialog rolling and a more critical thought process for readers of your site. Stay true. How will you deal with sponsors of your site? Its a tougher question than it seems. You have probably become friends or at least acquaintances with several artists in the scene. You must have your favorites. You will have to ask yourself if you can in fact stay true. There seem to be several voices looking for this in the genre, but IMO there are few that would be able to break their close ties to friends and collegues to be an effective critic. I'm looking forward to your effort though. Good Luck! We need the service. Well I dont think it will be a problem. I made sure with the sponsors I agreed to that the site would not be their "posting ground" there to advertise for everything possible. Most of them are there just to advertise prints. Also, I do have my favorites in the art scene, but I hope I am at the point that I can effectively talk about their work without my own bias coming through too much. I have had to write papers on artists I enjoy, as well as artists I care less about. So no matter what I am always trying to look at and interpret the art, paying little attention to what I would like to hang on my walls.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 14, 2009 15:32:11 GMT -8
I have been thinking about adding art criticism to the Creep Machine site. I am an on the Phd track for Art History so this is pretty much what I do all the time anyway, might as well add it to the site. I am pretty apprehensive though as most of the time people dont seem to like critiques and would just rather stick with the constant back-slapping. Bu I firmly believe that not only is this a scene filled with exciting ground breaking art, but it is important enough to justify talking about in a critical way. I think that's a good idea if you are willing to put yourself on the line. Not everyone will be happy with what you say obviously. It's hard to be a critic when you know artists and galleries... As people say, most of the time you just don't say anything...
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 14, 2009 15:40:13 GMT -8
Another thought- being an art critic isn't just saying "this is good, this is bad or derivative"... you had better have *serious* back up to whatever you say. A deeply thorough knowledge of art history in general (like say, a Master's in it) and a thorough knowledge of THIS scene is imperative, or you'll get laughed off the stage, rightfully so. However, art writing is a different animal...that can be either just the facts or opinionated but I think it's important to distinguish art writing vs art criticism. That said, it'd be great to have someone versed in art discuss this scene in an open, informed way. I see what you mean, and I do agree. Surely I am not the most knowledgeable person about this scene, but I do feel that I am more informed than most. I also would never talk about an artist/work that I was not informed of, and if needed I would do the research first. Most of the academic writing I have done, which never shows up on the site, is all centered around Mannerism, Baroque, German Expressionism, Italian Renaissance, Byzantine and so on. My professor is also working with me on Religious Iconography throughout the ages. So I have a good amount of the history down for comparisons. This scene is my main focus as it is currently in progress and there are enough Art Historians for the other "scenes" so I figure why not specialize in this one? As far as the critique style goes, it is a blog so I was going to keep it simple. Maybe just stick to the "Description, Analysis, Interpretation & Judgment" style, slimming it down if possible. Along with art history I am also very passionate about painting/drawing, I may not be the best at it, but I have enough knowledge of the vocabulary and practice to be able to talk about it, at least more than what I have seen on other sites. Still wondering if I am going to do this at all. I have worked very hard on this site, and its been a bumpy ride. I would hate to bring it all crashing down because I either did something wrong, or was it put people more on the defense as opposed to sparking more conversation about it all.
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Jul 14, 2009 20:26:40 GMT -8
Hey C- I hope you know I wasn't directly referring to you to you, just in general. I saw that you are aiming for a Phd in Art History. Nice. I personally can't think of a ghastlier occupation than that of a critic to be honest. There are far more fun things to do in the arts.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 14, 2009 22:21:58 GMT -8
Hey C- I hope you know I wasn't directly referring to you to you, just in general. I saw that you are aiming for a Phd in Art History. Nice. I personally can't think of a ghastlier occupation than that of a critic to be honest. There are far more fun things to do in the arts. No I didnt think that, your post actually got me thinking about it a bit more. It was helpful. I think I have actually found a nice middle ground idea instead of going full bore art critic with the site. I do want to talk more about art, but make it fun. My main concern and what drove me as far as art criticism goes, was just seeing how "nice" everything is. If an artist puts out work that shows now growth in idea or concept, no one says anything. All that is written seems to be on the positive side of things. Now I'm not saying to purposely search for negativity. Take for example the Sensation Exhibition, the controversy some of the works created, especially Marcus Harvey's "Myra", really helped to push the art to a wider audience and no doubt exposed more people to those artists. There is no end to essays and publications about the art shown there, and what was happening response to the exhibition as well. I don't think artists in this scene need to make works that will cause controversy for the sake of exposure, but I believe they already are creating works that have the ability to inspire conversations filled with more than just "Great job, this looks wonderful" as well as wondering who bought it or not, as many sites including mine are stuck doing. So I do think I have come up with a great way of inspiring more conversation, as well as pointing out the artists that should be seen. Not quite sure yet how to approach talking about the artists/events that could really do with some constructive criticism. Those are the instances that will cause backlash. I do feel something needs to be changed though. If not than the sites and magazines are nothing more than a means to promote products, and this art is far more deserving than just a pricetag and a handshake.
|
|
|
Post by LeBasse Projects on Jul 20, 2009 12:05:47 GMT -8
Do it C.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 24, 2009 12:18:11 GMT -8
Im going to. Slow a first, but looks like I will have some help now. There seems to be a possibility of a few art history majors, and even a professor that want to help. All of which are very interested in the current art scene.
|
|
cgriffin
New Member
too new to be clever
Posts: 32
|
Post by cgriffin on Jul 31, 2009 13:24:15 GMT -8
I think this an incredible idea! I've been watching the growth of 'low brow' for a little bit now, and it's got the same iconoclastic, idiosyncratic, energetic vibe that pop did, in the day. Coming from an academic background (don't shoot me!), I would LOVE to read some honest reviews/critiques of the movement, and the current and up-and-coming stars. Some of the stuff I look at and it just makes me scratch my head. And other stuff? Makes me clap and spin like a giddy schoolgirl. I'd love to see you do this, Mr. Creep. I truly would.
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Jul 31, 2009 16:25:30 GMT -8
So I was just thinking about this and I'm curious why people want critics in this scene (I'm genuinely interested). Do you think in the age of internet that they are really a valid force anymore? Do you want someone to tell you what to buy? Do you really want someone outside this scene telling you what is "good" and what is not? What if you really love something they denigrate? How would you feel about that? Or do you just want someone to stand up and call bs on the more derivative work openly (because it sure gets called out behind closed doors), or point out artistic references that the average person might not know? Do you feel that criticism would propel the "scene" forward...or would artists just start bending over to please the critics (which equals artistic death)? Curious what people thoughts are.
|
|
|
Post by hector23 on Jul 31, 2009 16:56:19 GMT -8
Sorry I kind of dropped off this discussion after starting it.
I really think this one sentence summed up my reason for wanting more criticism
"this art is far more deserving than just a pricetag and a handshake"
I don't think criticism in general has to be negative, it can explore the context of the art and tie it into different movements. For instance recently I purchased a book called Panic Attack!: Art in the Punk Years. This provided my first exposure to David Wojnarowicz who did a lot of work that seems incredibly relevant to the type of art we are into here.
Coming from a long involvement in the music industry and writing criticism in that style, I see it more as an opportunity to connect ideas and movements over time rather than dump on people. Crap stuff can be called out, but with the multitude of art available to write about sometimes silence on a subject can be worse for a career than badmouthing someone.
|
|
cgriffin
New Member
too new to be clever
Posts: 32
|
Post by cgriffin on Jul 31, 2009 17:19:43 GMT -8
Those are all very valid questions, roq. Internet or no, a critical discussion of the arts (ANY art) is valuable. That won't mean I'll start disliking something just because Joe Critic tells me it's not fashionable to like it, but it might just inform my opinion about a piece I DON'T care for, and supply a new viewpoint from which to appreciate it.
Critiquing, in itself, is an art. It should be knowledgeable, and a combination of the positive and the negative, not just lambasting an artist's skill or lack of originality. As an artist myself, I long for critique, to better improve my art doings, and ascertain if I'm hitting the mark I want to hit. Personally, I don't just paint for me. I paint to impress the world, share my skills and vision, grow as a creative individual, and if I'm really REALLY lucky, make money doing a job I love. (Yes, I'm THAT high-falootin'!)
I DO think critique will help propel the movement forward, and in some way, legitimize it. The critics should come from within the community, so there's no misunderstanding as to what the movement values. Aren't gallery owners serving as critics to some degree, in picking and choosing what they opt to show?
Would it curb the life and spirit of pop surrealism, low brow, etc., to have someone say "Wow, this is really good!" or "Yanno, I'm not diggin' yet another portrait of such-n-such; it's been done before, but better."? I don't think so, if handled intelligently.
My 2 cents! And worth just about that.
PS...here here, Hector! I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by entropy on Jul 31, 2009 18:34:07 GMT -8
People that love art want to learn more about it. We want it dissected and to know about it in the context of art history, pop culture, the artist's biography and previous series of works and political biases (if available), world history, and the current day Zeitgeist.
I want to know whether some of the work I suspect is total scheisse is really worth $3000 to $5000 that the galleries are tagging their work at. We're spending thousands on what I strongly suspect are mere toys... "Wall candy". Is it really just that? Very often, I think it is. A critic might point me to newer artists, a few outside this genre (perhaps this isn't the playground some of us should be playing in)
My intuition, intellect, and aesthetic tastes have been sufficient in guiding me thus far...and I'm very happy with my collection. A solid 25% of it though... I wish I could undo. I think I get swept up in the marketing and am susceptible to the hype sometimes... but I'm slowly learning. Illuminating essays and analyses provided by an art scholar would be very welcome.
I want other collectors to be more discerning about not just art but about the economics of the gallery world, how a few "power players" in this insular world are easily manipulating and exploiting some of the more naive and stupid into shelling out exorbitant amounts of money for the emperor's newest clothes. Tell us why it's worth the hype. Too bad I'm not privy to all the bulls__t being called out behind closed doors... not that I need to hear it, but if done publicly I think it would keep the art community honest.
Critics are an important and underappreciated part of our culture. Because of them I learned how to really watch films and enjoy them even more (not what I should like, contrary to roqlarue's comment above). I learned to think about what it is I'm seeing. The same thing can be done for underground art.
* * *
Here are my answers to roqlarue's survey:
Do you think in the age of internet that they are really a valid force anymore? Yes. At least to the educated.
Do you want someone to tell you what to buy? No. But critics don't do that. Magazines like Jux and HF do that by what they choose to cover. Same with the incessant fawning of a few select blogs.
Do you really want someone outside this scene telling you what is "good" and what is not? If they are better schooled in art history and the integrity of the artmaking process, I would certainly appreciate their opinion. I think it's even better if they are from outside the scene (needs to be someone with no vested monetary interest in what they are covering).
What if you really love something they denigrate? How would you feel about that? It would depend on why they have denigrated something. It is quite possible my favorite paintings or artists may have have pilfered from artists of a different era or genre...and I've just been ignorant all this time. I'd like to know that. I might feel embarrassed for having spent money on it. Then again, I might not care.
do you just want someone to stand up and call bs on the more derivative work openly (because it sure gets called out behind closed doors), Yes. Too many collectors and gallerists play nice and are afraid to call out bs because of the number of inbred relationships within the small scene.
or point out artistic references that the average person might not know? Of course, yes.
Do you feel that criticism would propel the "scene" forward... Yes, in the long run. it might momentarily knock a few artists or galleries back a step or two, but so what?
would artists just start bending over to please the critics (which equals artistic death)? If that were the case, then the artist's career does deserve to die. Accepting criticism is necessary for growth. Anyone who has ever taken a college course, has been critically knocked on their arse at least once per course, per semester. Right? It's all about learning.
|
|