- Critics are descriptive and interpretive, and positive in tone.
- Critics actually are positive in tone(what’s this?). The judgment comes from the data-gathering and description. The accuracy is important or the following judgment would go wrong.
- Description:
Internal information → Subject matter, Medium, Form
External information → the historical background, time, space… - subject matter → a general subject main role
subject → the extension description and interpretation of this main role
subject matter → could be media, form, intent, (When an artwork has no recognizable subject matter,) NOT CLEAR.
subject is more descriptive straightfowardly - The writing of critics should be able to raise the attention of the readers, to get involved in their imagination. → persuade!
- Critics require much research of internal and external sources of Information.
Critics are just like a positive the bridge between artwork and spectators, using lively language and ample supporting informations to describe and interpret the artwork. It’s an invitation which persuade spectators to walk into and, to think about, and to appreciate the observation of the artworks.
- Interpretation principles:
→ persuasive
→ feelings
→ world view
→ coherence
→ correspondence
→ inclusiveness (cannot judge with only one work) - Various interpretations can enrich spectators to understand.
- Art is aboutness which demand interpretation!
- Good interpretation → better grounded with evidence, talk about artworks than their own critic
Not good interpretation → too subjective, too narrow, irrelevant - Must relate the critic’s interpretation to the artworks, otherwise, it would be too subjective.
- “An artwork is not necessarily about what the artist wanted it to be about.”
- Artist’s interpretation is just one of many.
Artwork convey not only the intend of individual, but also the reflection of the time, space and the historical background. Furthermore, being human, we have conscious and subconscious, everything we yield would contain subtlety that we cannot be aware of.
- “Making interpretations and judgments are both acts of making decisions. providing reasons and evidence for those decisions, and formulating arguments for one’s conclusions.”
- Criterion of Judging Art:
→ Realism:
Nature has its meaning, available to be discerned by artists. Aristotle, Renaissance.
→ Expressionism:
Artists’ feelings and meanings matter.
→ Formalism
No narratives, no any human activities, “art for art’s sake”, Modernism(pro-modernism rejects it)
→ Instrumentalism:
Must have purposes for human society, Marx.
Those criterion are so relative and opposite to each other. To stand out with any belief is a kind of “art for art’s sake”, depending on how to identify art for the artists, critics and spectators themselves.
- Conclusion:
- This is not personal opinion, it’s about value of the artwork by definable criteria.
- “ It is logically and psychologically possible for people to both dislike an artist but value the artist’s work, or to dislike a critic but agree with his or her critical positions.”
I agree with this, but surprised by it’s rational and objective attitude!!! Especially comparing to the social consent which always relates to moral. If we take it necessary to judge the artist, it will hardly avoid the influence by our moral and eventually have more risk to judge in a subjective way.
- Open conclusion is welcome.
Yes, that’s a private individual space for audience themselves.
- Critics judge art for audience not for the artist.
“have us enjoy as they enjoy.”
Huh, why does the role of critic in the movie always acts like an arrogant a******?
Ruyin Digital Arts Pracicum 