i have an essay
haha check de new smilies
---cut'n'paste (apologies for long length post)---
Art critics challenge and provoke artists and audiences about matters of interpretation and judgement.
---------
Changing philosophies in, functions for, and materials used in artmaking has lead to a change in the way art is perceived by the public. A shift from the structural and cultural frames to the subjective and recently postmodern frames means that the interpretations of an artwork can be much more wide-ranging than previous to the 20th century. This statement is especially true in relation to contemporary Australian criticismas a comparatively young nation it has taken some time for a uniquely Australian style of critical writing to develop.
Both the popular press and specific art journals are mediums through which critics can express their opinions and interpretations of an artwork, collection, gallery, or particular artist. While some take the opinion that because critical writing implies authority, the critic knows best and that they are always right. However many will disagree with the critics depending on how they feel about an issue.
John McDonald is a well-known and often controversial art critic, with strong opinions on a wide range of aspects of the visual art world. In an essay entitled Up Its Own Art (Spectrum liftout, Sydney Morning Herald, April 6-7 2002), he launches an intense attack on the current state of contemporary artDumbed down and robbed of the old taboos, contemporary art has lost its ability to move or stimulate us. The article is very provocative, making claims like Art criticism has reached its lowest ebb in 20 years and the kind of work that best represents the New British Art is[a] fatuous affair.
It seems that McDonald has written this piece to provoke the artists, the audience (gallery-going public) and other critics alike. Along with other strong opinions expressed in the piece, this article would have supporters of modern conceptual art up in arms. His attacks on contemporary artists, who he claims are pursuing the career for a taste of pop fame, are sure to provoke practising artists.
Provoking criticisms also appear in another of McDonalds articles, Off The Wall written for the Sydney Morning Herald. As well as containing a scathing review of Adam Geczy and Ben Genocchios book What is Installation?, McDonald writes in the article that installation art is a type of light entertainment, leaving audiences titillated rather than challenged. Comments such as this and the best installation art may simply instil a sense of aesthetic pleasure, while of a challenging nature, are not supported by fact or second opinion and it can be easy to see that this articles only basis is the opinion of McDonald.
Another famous Australian critic, but somewhat less controversial, is Daniel Thomas. Unlike John McDonald, he writes mostly for specific art publications. In 1997 issue of Art & Australia, he writes a positive review of the art of Peter Tyndall. Using his position as a respected art writer, Thomas gives us his interpretations of Tyndalls conceptual art. Country cunning, patience, and planned chance here produce magical results. Although Thomas is not as sharply opinionated as McDonald, it still remains that these are his interpretations, which others may not agree with. On encountering Thomass opinions, a reader will most likely stop and consider his own position on Tyndalls work.
In an article by Thomas in Art Monthly Australia (March 2002) entitled Two Marvellous Museums, his views would probably be influential to the reader. By thinking so highly of the additions to the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery and Launcestons Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, he may motivate the reader to visit these galleries, to see if the new architecture Thomas writes so fondly about is really so marvellous.
Besides the architecture, he also comments on several other aspects of the galleries: admission charges and the actual content. His views on admission charges for any gallery are quite strongThomass view is that they are distinctly tacky. The general public would most likely agree with this statement, however specific audience groups such as gallery owners and curators may disagree, arguing that admission fees can often be the only feasible way to keep the gallery afloat.
In relation to the content of the galleries, Thomas praises the Launceston gallerys current exhibitcomprising solely of Tasmanian art, colonial to contemporary. The Ballarat exhibit, though, is fairly mediocre in Thomass eyesmiddling-quality, with the exception of the Eureka FlagAustralias greatest icon of colonial political rebellion. Again, this is a matter of personal taste and historical valuesartists and audiences may disagree with these statements.
It seems that art critics, while creating a first impression of an artwork, collection, gallery, or particular artist for many readers, can ultimately only start people onto the formations of their opinions. They can also make one stop and reconsider their views on a subjectperhaps they do have a point here. Alternately, they may further convince a reader that they are correct, and that this misguided critic has interpreted their subject erroneously.
---------
and 2 other summaries if yr interested...
