They Don't Know; or; Do Artists Understand Critics?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

From underground pirate radio to the heights of the BritArt and BritLit scene, the message from 'creatives' to the critics who diss them rings clear - either these people are jealous (failed musicians/painters/writers/wealth-creators) or they are stupid (and don't 'get it') or even both! Valid complaints, or lazy excuses?

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well, the critics have done far more for the likes of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin than they could ever have done on their own.

― katie, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Almost always lazy excuses. Given that most art, literature and music is very bad.

― Nick, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There does seem to be a different mindset at work between the Critic and the Artist. The Critic has the benefit of having his subject matter already marked out, and the structure of his task essentially mapped out according to editor's demands, word limits, etc. The Artist, on the other hand, labours under an excess of choice. If the Artist can do (literally) anything, why, at any one point, does s/he make that choice and not another?. Martin Amis said he made '50,000 decisions a page'. (Not that he is a benchmark of quality...). That's why I find essays, literary criticism, and film criticism comparatively easy and any Creative Writing I do waffles off the point terribly.
As a point of comparison, this division is eroded to some extent, in France, where, for example, a lot of film directors (techine, truffaut) went through a kind of 'apprenticeship' for 'Cahiers du Cinema' before embarking upon their own films.
Search: Wilde's 'The Critic as Artist', I suppose.
Destroy: the work of Alain de Botton, which I used to like as a synthesis of essay and novel, now I find him a little too much like a bog-standard agony uncle.

― Will, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Will - your assumption that criticism is paid and editorially controlled and that creative work is not seems a little odd.

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Fair point, I just thought that there is a greater degree of editorial control over critical work. My friend's aplaywright and a journalist and he relishes the freedom he enjoys when writing his plays, in comparison to the three paragraph 'intro-synopis-opinion' reviews he has to do for his newspaper.

― Will, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Lazy excuses.

― RickyT, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There is a great degree of editorial control over paid critical work, yes - but most people who criticise art aren't being paid for it (like most people who make it).

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

m.amis shd cut his decisions to one per page: "just say no"

― mark s, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And if "lazy excuses", then why do they get made? Might it be that artists approve of a mass, undifferentiated response to their work (viewer/sales/readership figures) but not of an individual response? Are their egos simply shell-like? Is the production of the work more satisfying than its reception? Do they not want to risk finding things out about the work that aren't neccessarily what they thought was in it?

(Also it isn't always lazy excuses, though in practise the envy-thing seems to be better applied to successful creatives having a go at one another rather than an unknown criticising a known)

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think much of it comes from taking criticism of the work as criticism of the self. Not that this isn't natural. If you've poured a lot of yourself into a song/book/artwork and then a critic takes it apart and demolishes it piece by piece I would imagine it must be quite difficult not to take it personally to some extent.

― RickyT, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think you can intuit when a piece of work has been made for its own sake, and when a piece of work has been made for ulterior motives: approval, wealth, notoreity. The work made for its own sake is usually better.
Just please don't ask me why the former is better or I'll end up waffling about 'soul' and saying 'maaaan' a lot.

― Will, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't think you can intuit that Will (or to be more accurate I don't think you can usually intuit artistic motives to the degree that they can usefully impact on the reception of the work) but I'm not sure how it connects to the question...

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i intuit that Will was paid to write that

― mark s, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, I do both and I have to say that each 'camp' has valid reason to complain about the inadequacies of the other. There is nothing more frustrating, as an artist, to provide background materials to those who will review the work, only to find the critic has completely disregarded this information in their review. Obviously if the review is good this is not as huge a problem as when the review is negative. If the dismissal is high-handed and without qualification eg. 'THIS isn't a short story/novel/film/artwork' you have to think, 'but of course it is, you wanker, and that's not criticism.' The reviewer, in most cases, will reach many more people than the work they are reviewing, so I feel a sense of responsibility in trying to convey what the artist/creative person has set out as their agenda and whether or not, in my opinion, they have succeeded at the task.

When trying to promote a creative work of my own I make damned sure that people who I feel will be sympathetic actually receive the piece. I think, of all the people who make work and have to engage with critics, the nicest and most willing to treat the critic as equal are actually artists, who will take you through what they are doing and spend quality time explaining.

As to the 'failed' being jealous, that is often down to personality.

― suzy, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"background materials" = eg stuff by which artists kids self work is not abt how horrible his/her mother is; critic sees through such nonsense immediately (esp. as is written thusly: "repositioning the notion of indetity, [x] attempts to genders the jouissance" blah blah), largely as in major denial abt own rel'n w.parents

― mark s, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hang on, yer average amateur critic (ie your whole damn audience) isn't going to have these background materials made available, right? Because they'd otherwise be an integral part of the work. So isn't the pro-critic who ignores these materials merely trying to remove themself from the privileged position that possession of said materials elevates them to, and so better reach out to their own audience?

― RickyT, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It wasn't really connected to your first question, Tom, I was just waffling along to the 'Is the production of the work more satisfying than its reception?' part of your later post. I originally thought that if an artist was more concerned with the former, it comes through in the art. Well, sometimes. After reading Suzy's post, I take her point that the writer/painter/sculptor does what s/he does with a reader/viewer in mind, so therefore the production of a good work of art is intimately connected with the desire to be received favourably. Production and reception are very difficult to play off against one another to say one is more important.

A related point: some works of criticism are almost works of art in themselves.

― Will, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ricky, the consumer will have access to a certain amount of background info - and if you are otaku you'll go mental to get it - but imagine our society if those who were paid to mediate in any capacity failed to do so and still got paid for it?

A critic is meant to communicate an INFORMED opinion, not a slapdash one. Lazy journalism/criticism helps nobody.

― suzy, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Lazy journalism/criticism helps nobody.

Why do I find myself wanting to disagree here?

― Nick, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, it helps Julie Burchill! But apart from anyone who makes a career out of writing it, I'm not so sure.

I am really very mindful of not being a lazy writer, although I am on occasion a tired and cranky one.

― suzy, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Problem with too much background ie artists sitting down with critic and explaining the work etc, is that I'm not all that interested in the artist's interpretation of their own work. Or at least, I am, but not repeated 12 times through 12 different critics mouths. If I'm reading your criticism, I want to know what YOUR take on the work is, not the One True Interpretation of The Artist.

― RickyT, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

oddly enough, laziness is i think part of the point of journalism, as filtration-integration: eg if idea carries through fug of lazy misreading and habit-grab cliche, then it is a GIANT of an idea

i am being semi-serious here

― mark s, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Should this thread be re-titled: "Is 'Mr Writer' by The Stereophonics the funniest song ever written?"

― Ally C, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tom, could you clarify the pirate radio bit of your question?

― gareth, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Gareth - a reference to the origins of the So Solid Crew, whose hata- hating hit provides the threat title.

― Tom, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Okay, this is just me, perhaps, but I find the choices of jealousy or stupidity...well, kinda limiting as a response from the creator in question. Without wanting to denigrate the commitment anyone has for their work in question, why even bother worrying about it if pressed? To me it seems the logical equivalent to my own taste on music (as debated elsewhere) -- namely, if I feel there are no automatic standards, merely what we ourselves feel as individuals, then if I do something -- heck, I'm writing that novel -- that someone dismisses, that's their call, surely? Why waste energy attacking back?

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Initial response to bad review. "But the critic does not understand what I was doing - pshaw silly critic". Proper response is "Why does the critic not understand. Were the clues not in the original. Or is the critic stupid". In the end any work of art will not be for all men. What might infuriate artist is that one of the men it was not for has the power to turn of others it might be for.

Talking telegraphese at moment for no good reason. Must STOP.

― Pete, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Artists are right, not because they understand critics, but simply because critics are always wrong.

― Sterling Clover, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.