Criticism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Criticism » Criticism

Criticism
Four questions about criticism.

Criticism

nelvan
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 101

Posted 10/01/09 - 02:00 PM: Subject: Criticism	#1
I do not necessarily mean negative criticism but all criticism, both negative and positive. 1) Without criticism, would art degenerate? 2) Without criticism, would any artist stand out 3) and for that matter, is it necessary that particular artists stand out with the aid of critics? 4) Is criticism biased to begin with or in other words, is there politics involved in criticism, which keeps the real talent marginalized? Thx y'all!

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/02/09 - 12:29 AM:	#2
1. No, it would still exist and improve, as Art is not a process of analysis and assessment, it is an expression. You don't need a critic to assess your expression. 2 Yes, your work and your expression will standout if you really engage yourself in it. You don't need a critique to know how well a poem by, say Valmiki (his love birds that instigated the Ramayana poem) or the works of Homer (Illiad?) and even the likes of Charles Colton didn't need assessment. Can anyone assess and judge Shakespeare? Or Kalidas? I don't think so, if they'd be alive today, they might probably not make it as literary artists - due to blatant commercialism. 3. Yes, it is - it's biased towards commercialism. It's value only exists with economic gains. If not, there would be no criticism for expression.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

joseph.weissman
Fractal Ontologist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2009
Location: USA

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/03/09 - 09:28 AM: Subject: Philosophy also creates!	#3
Without criticism, would art degenerate? "No, it would still exist and improve, as Art is not a process of analysis and assessment, it is an expression. You don't need a critic to assess your expression." Perhaps, but philosophy also creates novel expressions, although in most cases rather than a concern with the affects and intensities characteristic of the work of art proper, the philosopher concerns himself with the creation of concepts, grinding new lenses by which to evaluate the world, which under the best conditions enable a transformation of human possibilities. But artistic production is certainly and without a doubt a matter of assessment, insofar as new evaluations of reality are created by the essentially artistic means of falsifying reality via intoxication; art does not need to convince, it seduces one to its perspective: art is the consequence of having a viewpoint, a living soul which demands fiction -- here is the origin of the "expressive" power of art. Artistic production is not an interpretation as such; rather it is explicitly and implicitly symptomatic of an evaluation: it reveals a certain kind of force and will "behind" it -- between the lines of a poem, those who listen carefully (and perhaps I should add cautiously) may briefly hear the telltale whisper of the will which crafted them, and thereby gain an insight into the nobility or vulgarity of this living soul as well.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/04/09 - 10:20 PM:	#4
joseph.weissman wrote: Perhaps, but philosophy also creates novel expressions, although in most cases rather than a concern with the affects and intensities characteristic of the work of art proper, the philosopher concerns himself with the creation of concepts, grinding new lenses by which to evaluate the world, which under the best conditions enable a transformation of human possibilities. But artistic production is certainly and without a doubt a matter of assessment, insofar as new evaluations of reality are created by the essentially artistic means of falsifying reality via intoxication; art does not need to convince, it seduces one to its perspective: art is the consequence of having a viewpoint, a living soul which demands fiction -- here is the origin of the "expressive" power of art. Artistic production is not an interpretation as such; rather it is explicitly and implicitly symptomatic of an evaluation: it reveals a certain kind of force and will "behind" it -- between the lines of a poem, those who listen carefully (and perhaps I should add cautiously) may briefly hear the telltale whisper of the will which crafted them, and thereby gain an insight into the nobility or vulgarity of this living soul as well. It is a matter of assessment to the viewer, not the artist. True artistic works do not consider assessment of their viewers, they express themselves. Again, I would also question, can art, in any form, be explicit? Are your own feelings and sentiments explicit, or are they the implicit understanding of a particular general object/subject? How can your expressions be explicit at the moment of comprehension and contemplation (philosophy)? I would agree should you then suggest that it's implicit, but the expression itself is projected so that the sentiment is thus explicit for evaulation and criticism - that which has nothing to do with art, hence how is art explicit? And finally, the nobility or vulgarity in art is surely the nature of explicit expression (or rather evaluation), not implicit sentiment. How can your implicit nature of comprehension even be vulgar or noble without any form of explicit expression? And if such expression is art, thus your explicit expression is art after evaluation or is it only art after criticism? The mistake arises, that I think, when you conform implicit and explicit nature of art. Thus assessment, and criticism of art, does not at all assist in better projection, rather, it limits and degrades the implicit processes of art that mutilate it's quality - so that art could be limited within the defined territories of criticism (do they even understand even... I don't think so).
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Z. Thustra
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 10/18/09 - 02:22 PM:	#5
Desidude666 wrote: 1. No, it would still exist and improve, as Art is not a process of analysis and assessment, it is an expression. You don't need a critic to assess your expression. Art is an expression? So if I say to you "I'm sad" thats art? You later say "True artistic works do not consider assessment of their viewers, they express themselves." So art does not concern anyone except the artist? Its hard to tell what this means. What does it mean for artistic works to "express themselves?" This is vague and, frankly, useless language. Art is not just about the expression of the artist. Art is not so shallow. Good art elicits valuable feelings and thoughts in whoever is experiencing it, the artist or anyone else. You are grouping the process of creating art with the actual function of the work of art itself. That's like saying the act of making a table is part of the table's function itself. Art should be criticized. It should have a purpose and it should be evaluated to see if it fulfills that purpose. It should be evaluated to see if there are any better ways to fulfill that purpose. If an artist wants to express something, fine, but if the product of that effort has no effect on anyone else, or the artist himself, it is pointless. Art is not pointless. Something pointless would not be such a big part of human life for thousands of years. Art could still improve without professional critics, but not without critical thought itself.
http://www.zazzle.com/philosophergifts http://modernartisterrible.blogspot.com

austintureaud
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/18/09 - 03:25 PM:	#6
Z. Thustra wrote: :Art is an expression? So if I say to you "I'm sad" thats art? You later say "True artistic works do not consider assessment of their viewers, they express themselves." So art does not concern anyone except the artist? Its hard to tell what this means. What does it mean for artistic works to "express themselves?" This is vague and, frankly, useless language. Art is not just about the expression of the artist. Art is not so shallow. Good art elicits valuable feelings and thoughts in whoever is experiencing it, the artist or anyone else. You are grouping the process of creating art with the actual function of the work of art itself. That's like saying the act of making a table is part of the table's function itself. Art should be criticized. It should have a purpose and it should be evaluated to see if it fulfills that purpose. It should be evaluated to see if there are any better ways to fulfill that purpose. If an artist wants to express something, fine, but if the product of that effort has no effect on anyone else, or the artist himself, it is pointless. Art is not pointless. Something pointless would not be such a big part of human life for thousands of years. Art could still improve without professional critics, but not without critical thought itself. I strongly disagree with you. Art is a valid form of expression and it doesn't require criticism because it a representation of an artist's emotions and thoughts. Should we judge emotions and feelings? Is art bad because some people can't recognize the underlying message? There is no "good or "bad" art in my opinion for all art is a conscious portrayal of one's feelings. Edited by austintureaud on 10/18/09 - 07:07 PM

MasterSean2k
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: DC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/21/09 - 05:18 PM:	#7
The content of an object of sense (in this case art) is what is given to the mind, but its form is imposed on the object by the mind according to the rules of the categories. What is expressed has some bearing on how we view it; pleasantness is judged in accordance with the harmony of our understanding of the content and imagination of the form. Criticism is the vocal description of the harmony/discord between form and content. As nothing achieves absolute harmony nor absolute discord, there are always bits to point out in justification of either. Typically, "taste" in this sense refers not to actual taste, but to the social identification of works as status symbols. So as to whether art degenerates without criticism, the answer is both yes and no. The individual judgements remain the same, but social distinction between "good" or "bad" works would cease to exist, leading to claims of "this is art" for more and more works. The same is true of artists, who are identified with their works. The artists themselves are unimportant so far as the judgement of art is concerned, and without critics no single artist would stand out. I believe that answers all four questions.
~MS2k

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 10/22/09 - 06:16 AM:	#8
nelvan: your question depends on several things, namely, what you believe the function of art to be. You've stated that "degeneration" is a possible state which the arts which can be, and thus that "degenerate" is something which a piece of art can be. What does "art" need to be in order for it to be degenerate? Is it the critic or the nature of art which these types of descriptions arise from, and therefore is art teleologically oriented? I think question (4) is the most interesting. If I can restate it as a statement, it would say: "criticism involves politics" and "criticism, & therefore politics, can marginalize an artist." Now I disagree with your notion of a "real" artist, because I think you have already fallen victim to both "politics" and "criticism" in making the statement. But how politics and culture interact to produce your questions is a far more interesting question than the ones which you've stated. One critical view on art which I find interesting is the following: that artwork performs a certain set of roles, viz., either to consolidate a specific social attitude or discourse, or to make known and thus alienate one from these attitudes or discourses. Thus a particularly violent string quartet, for instance, makes known a specific musical culture and attitudes towards music, and reveals contradictions within a particular society by virtue of alienating the listener from that society and discourse. That said, I think it's arguable that criticism performs a valuable role in the arts as criticism, but not when it performs the following role: to consolidate a particular discourse or produce judgments of value. I would argue that criticism's role is to analyze artwork and its context, looking at how and why it is working, accepted, loved, hated, or rejected, and not to define "real" and "irreal" and "bad" and "good" artists.
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/29/09 - 12:12 AM:	#9
Z. Thustra wrote: Art is an expression? So if I say to you "I'm sad" thats art? You later say "True artistic works do not consider assessment of their viewers, they express themselves." So art does not concern anyone except the artist? Its hard to tell what this means. What does it mean for artistic works to "express themselves?" This is vague and, frankly, useless language. Obviously it's useless, because it's professional engagement for you. To me, art isn't about exhibitions, sale or patronizing work - it's about creation. Anything else is either commerce or trade-off. Don't confuse creation with that what is not art. Of course you find it vague, think about it harder. Z. Thustra wrote: Art is not just about the expression of the artist. Art is not so shallow. Good art elicits valuable feelings and thoughts in whoever is experiencing it, the artist or anyone else. You are grouping the process of creating art with the actual function of the work of art itself. That's like saying the act of making a table is part of the table's function itself. Table's a utility object, art isn't for utility. Of course you find it vague, because you have no idea what you're talking about. You express yourself, and whatever materializes is a work of art. That is what art is. If you add function to it, you then produce an object, it is defined as an artwork for a functional utility. It's not art at all, just a justification and label. Art isn't supposed to be sold, bought or exhibited. Z. Thustra wrote: Art should be criticized. It should have a purpose and it should be evaluated to see if it fulfills that purpose. It should be evaluated to see if there are any better ways to fulfill that purpose. If an artist wants to express something, fine, but if the product of that effort has no effect on anyone else, or the artist himself, it is pointless. Art is not pointless. Something pointless would not be such a big part of human life for thousands of years. Again, suggest a functional form of 'art'. When you say functional, how can a painting be functional? Perhaps depicting a monarch in a painting serves identification - however, how is that 'art'? Wouldn't it be a portrait? You demonstrate skill but it isn't 'art'. It's idiosyncratic depiction. You cannot produce functional art. You cannot. Z. Thustra wrote: Art could still improve without professional critics, but not without critical thought itself. How can you 'improve' art. You've really not understood art as an expression and commercialism of 'art'. Art need not be seen or vetted, it is just for the artist. If you suggest self-criticism, I might agree but only to an extent. No artist can take criticism. It's like criticizing him.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.