I think criticism mostly hurts. I don' t like it so much myself when it's aimed at me. then again, if it's from someone I respect, I try to listen and see if it rings true. . .maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.
I do think that perhaps what's been getting under my skin lately about being social at this moment in time, is its unbearable lightness, and its speed . . .we're watching each other look at where we're going and what we're doing, who we're doing it with. we find ourselves in psychically tight corners. like a crowded elevator, this is not a place for intensity.
perhaps criticism is inappropriate in a communications world of immediate responses, of friend-building, easy feedback and close virtual quarters . . .this only makes us inclined to be more polite, or more coy. and perhaps that is the right response. . .with the potential to be unfair, to be on the record, to be harsh in a way that the target of the criticism does not return. . .why bother? but, then again what is a society that is not particularly critical--or honest-- with each other? at least sometimes? I suppose we have to look for appropriate places for criticality, and still be extra careful?
or have I just been living in the south too long?
-kt
9 comments:
you suck!
j/k
= )
yes, critique is a funny business, it's always subjective, there is no such thing as pure objectivity & now, as you say, in this time, the online experience provides almost infinite locales of differing ecstasies, why would one bother to offer an indepth criticism when most people are just looking for that " oh cool! " or whatever.
i became an obsessive commenter on blogs after i discovered that, holy shit, i can say anything i want to! sometimes there is a moderated interface, which is often wise b/c there's many bots dropping bullshit.
sometimes leaving a comment, even when one knows it'll just be like a drop in the ocean, provides a necessary purge, regardless of if there is any actual response to engage with, i was amazed at this huge commentstream onna NYTimes thing about why Americans are dumb:
damn near one thousand comments
some people have made careers out of venomous critique, like this asshole , & i remember back intha late 80's there wuzza zine call'd Ugly American outta NYC that specialized in bitingly mean reviews, but it was great, really funny, one of my favorites bands had just broken up, Spacemen 3, & the lead singer then released his 1st solo record, it had a cool op-art cover 'n all but the record was kinda lame, & Ugly American just tore it straight up, it was reassuring to me, to read what a bad album it was, b/c i knew it sucked & being confirmed in print made the case stronger, he even hadda song about his buddy od'ing on heroin, which U.A. parodied like hell, Sonic Boom sang "where was my guardian angel on the day my best friend died?" & the album review took that & ran with it.
famed music critic Seymour Glass is one of the best at highly critical critique, & he backs his shit up w/ a legit argument.
okay, i'm gettin' tired, i'm vinotipsy & i'll just end this here.
feel free to delete this comment if it's aesthetically unappealing, no offense will be taken.
I guess you say I suck. . .because you disagree with me about criticism. . .however. . .I'm realizing that there's little room for criticism on local unprofessional levels. . .what good does it do?. . .the real criticism is lack of attentence or support or friends. popularity rules.
I myself have the curse/gift of a critical mind. too critical and freedom lovin' to join in with powerful institutions. it leaves me estranged and without authority in a community that perhaps has simpler needs than to meet my standards. I find that I have to be very careful with any sharp pens and or tongues concerning my real opinion about art. I also have a heart, and want to encourage anyone who wants to stake out some creative claim, even if I'm not into it. (lord knows, I'm sure I have disappointed plenty with all my art experiments.)
it's up to me to find the projects, spaces and communities that inspire me. and if I"m lost, I must make up my own worlds.
-kt
j/k
means " just kidding "
then the emoticon
= )
tries to put it in context
apologies if you took it the wrong way, i thot it was a good gag, concerning what you were discussing,
also i was a bit tipsy & i don't really give any clear comment, just rambling.
i actually swiped the " j/k " thing from a person named Ghost Starbie (who, unfortunately, has made his blog invite only now, so i can't link to it), but he'd write things like "ghost starbie is a (j/k) comics/poetry of institutional critique & art theory. the intent is (j/k) subversion of both postmodern artworld discourse & the (j/k) conservative ideology of alternative comics. (j/k) "
-- better examples are on his blog, i thot it was great how he'd write something then negate it w/ a (j/k).
here's a love-letter i wrote to him, he never wrote back, but we exchanged a couple of nice emails, i admire the way he operates,
talking to Ghost Starbie
here's an example of his visual work:
Duchamp Supercuts
oh, & i came across a pretty good brief write-up about that zine i was gushing about:
Ugly American
yes, i too think critical debate is necessary & actually helps greatly, esp. when the discourse consists of concrete arguments & goes beyound the " you suck!" or personal attack angle -- me myself, i'm rotten about being a reference & date hound, e.g., a recent artist using a gun to make art, & gaining a platform b/c of the technique, in my mind William S. Burroughs was the first to do gun-art & if anything i see that comes after does not match the quality W.S.B. obtained, then i tend to deny the newer stuff.
a recent site i found that i think is interesting, in part b/c The Comics Journal used to run a great feature called "the swipe file" where they'd print obvious swipes, this site reminds me of that,
you thought we wouldn't notice
forgive me for my obtuse sense of humor & again, apologies for coming across wrong.
i will refrain from commenting on your blog hereafter, unless you say it's okay.
i don't want to pollute yr blog w/ my madness.
i have a tendency to "go apeshit" & go overboard etc., but that is because i'm stimulated, & yr blog gives prompt via intense stimulus to leave comments, i invest my time in such things b/c i feel it necessary to give feedback, if one is taking the time to present thought-provoking material, then i feel almost impelled to at least "give something back", but often, the stuff i come up w/ is misinterpreted & causes conflict or annoyance, which saddens me, but so goes it.
i will disappear.
troy. . .please continue yr comments. . .I enjoy them immensely.
to find other thinkers/feelers and show that I, too have intense ideas and interpretations about living in our incredibly changing world. it's the whole point of doing this blog for me. . .that, and catharsis.
(so, I have a thick skin. . .let's let this be a place for the critical, try to back it up and check it together. . .I want to speak about things beyond the surface. we can't get there unless we're frank.
so, don't disappear, hang around.
-kt
As a critic, I find criticism tremendously useful - mainly because the process of formulating a critique forces me to understand more about an artist and their work. I think of good critique as a service for viewers of art which helps them undertake that same process, without being forced to spend a few hours writing a review which essentially says "this is good" or "this is bad."
-Ben
ben. . .
I've really been struggling with this idea. . .what is the best approach at our level, out here in the cultural suburbs of the art world. . . .I can see it is often counterproductive to be harsh and yet perhaps honestly reactive. and, yet too much of our art is made in a critical, boomerist vacuum, we end up with in a treadmill of cliche, tired redundancy and a lot of mediocre commercial approaches to artmaking but with all the accoutrements of blingy pr.
. . . but the danger of outright criticality in a sensitive and developing art scene is that it might intimidate or discourage the edgier ideas, perhaps out of sync with international trends, but indigenously wonderful or unique. they are vulnerable as they emerge, often in experimental learning phases. we need to be patient with those. this sort of thing should be encouraged more than the adherence to international standards of professionality, which is only one aspect of art now.
it's seems to me that the best criticism might be through example. I don't know how that translates to art criticism. as an artist, that means striking out in the direction you might wish to see others adventure into. . .and hope to inspire the talent of others. I guess photography can really help the critic now. . .as well as analysis as to which areas of art something is aspiring to, or defining. there are so many valid approaches now.
I'm glad you all are doing so much blog work with regional art crit on burn away. . .it's very exciting. . .and I'm curious how it will all grow.
but when you are an artist in a small art community, public criticality can be political suicide. few want to sacrifice their own career for the betterment of a scene that will probably never be a new york or LA. . .and no one wants to be pegged as negative.
that said, being critical is VERY important. .but in today's intimate communications environment, our habits of not going very deep into meaning of art. . . great discrimination must be used in where criticism is published and how it is worded. also descriptive reviews do nothing to help the critic of the art. . .they only serve as cheerleading promotional devices.
chow, chow, thanks for writing. . .
I'll try to participate more on burn away
and, let's talk more about criticism sometime. . .
-kt
Karen, this is something I've given much thought to, also. Thanks for posting it. I have a highly critical mind but I struggle with it because I don't want it to cripple my open-ness to something different. Also I don't want my opinions (if published or shared at all) to be hurtful, but constructive. I think it's hard to be critical and open at the same time. There needs to be criticism though, even in the local sphere. If there were only encouragement, it's a one-way road and nobody benefits, least of all artists themselves. But the criticism needs to be civil AND specific. No vague terms or personal attacks.
When an artist decides to go public with a piece of artwork, then it is fair game for criticism. I don't think we need to step lightly around the issue even if the artist is just starting out. There is a time and place for encouragement... among friends, in the studio, etc. But once it's on exhibit, it's public. If they didn't want criticism, then they shouldn't have gone public until they were sure. But also, criticism and encouragement aren't mutually exclusive. I think the best criticism helps rather than hurts the artist, even when it's judging negatively.
The term "generosity of spirit" comes to mind, and the idea of being generous not just w/ your possessions but with your mind: how you see others, judge them, etc. It is hard to balance the two: judging harshly and keeping an open mind and a positive encouraging attitude.
Trolloyd, i'd be interested in knowing what you dislike about Dan's criticism. I think he rubs me the wrong way, too, with his vitriol, but at the same time, at least he delves into specifics. I see very few (to none) literary critics who go to the lengths he does in that arena (even if you disagree with his conclusions). I think his kind of specificity can really help a beginning poet.
hey Karen,
i've been outta town all week w/ no online access, now back, i was glad to see how this commentstream has developed.
i think good critique is an investigation & through critical writing comes a process of discovery -- one of the best things about blogs (or online communities in general) is the speed in which point/counterpoint can be made, often w/ references/research & an ability for continuous modification, the discussion becomes a part of "the archive" -- this slightly differs from the vocal speech of "real time" interaction in that the actual physicality of presence is missing -- which, as oft writ about, can possibly cause a "mean spiritedness" in folks not normally like that, the whole "netiquette" thing i guess, recent criminal cases involving "cyber bullying" illustrate this & it highlights the importance of kinesics in our daily language usage, how we "read" speech goes beyond the words being said.
JimmyLo?
as you mention, his vitrolic rants are something i dislike & i don't think he goes into specifics at all, i wouldn't even call what he does "criticism". i have no idea where this guy is coming from, but i do know he simply doesn't know what he's trying to talk about.
when writing about Zukofsky, he states:
" Louis Zukofsky is 1 of those poets that found a sort of refuge in trying to define black as white, & declaring the rest of the poetry world crazy for not seeing his way as the true way- that is experimental, or minimalist poetry called Objectivist. No, he did not go to the Zen extremes of Gary Snyder, nor did he wholly disintegrate into formlessness like the worst of the Languagists, but his poetry, as it is, is very meager- save for his book-length monstrosity A- which has some good sections in its 1st couple dozen pages, then goes about 750 pages too long, descending into lined musical ditties and just ridiculously bad writing. That book, alone, seemed to be confirmation that poetry had lost its way by mid-20th Century."
describing "A" as a "book-length monstrosity" & simply dismissing much of Zuk's poetry in such brutal terms only illustrates Dan's ignorance & lack of faculties for understanding & disinterest about the investigative process, it's simply lazy -- especially compared to piece of "real" critical writing, such as Rachel Blau DuPlessis about
Zukofsky
Read Dan's "review" about Yoko Ono & it's evident that he has no idea or concern for the historical framework necessary for contextual placements, i understand if the guy doesn't like conceptual art, but i think he's just trying to appeal to a trad "base attitude", but it sure ain't commonsense if that's what he's getting at,
don't worry Yoko, it's only snowing
Dan describes Diane Di Prima as a
"beatnik babe" & talking about one of my fave Beat poets, Bob Kaufman, as such: "What is not said in this bio is that BK was also a homeless bum with mental problems." -- it stuns me how he trades in this vulgarity.
i no big fan of Thomas Lux's work, altho i recognize he is a good poet & i am actually fond of his early surrealist type works, Lux is a poetry professor at Ga. Tech, here's what Dan sez about Thomas Lux
i much prefer someone like Marjorie Perloff:
AFTER LANGUAGE POETRY: INNOVATION AND ITS THEORETICAL DISCONTENTS
Jimmy, thanx for taking the time to ask.
Post a Comment