I think you make an excellent point. In the same way (in terms of self-critique), I tend to avoid gestural abstract painting, preferring more often planned-abstracts; my attempts at gestural painting ultimately seem of little value, as there was little or no real idea/meaning within it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by treeshark
I would agree, there is not enough personal prejudice in the judgement of art. It is an area where unprovable personal opinion is perfectly correct and desirable. Indeed the polemical route is the only one you can really take that makes any sense. Then the chaff is sorted from the wheat by aggregated opinion. However though it is OK to say a work is good it seems to be considered impolite to say that it is bad. So the negative side of the argument for any work tends not to be put.
You see countless programmes praising this and that artist to the heavens, but no mention is made of the stinkers he or she painted or indeed the weaker aspects of their presumed successes. The programmes always revel in any character defect though, focussing with a drooling delight on sexual peccadillos, drunkenness or arrogance. They almost never mention the technical aspects of painting, how the object was made, and if they do so it is often only in passing. Sometimes I shout at the screen, "Show us the painting!!" as the camera floats meaninglessly across the paint surface from a few inches away, the complete thing only seen momentarily over the presenter's shoulder!
I do understand that these are public forums and that criticism of opinion and art can hurt, but without critical dialogue ideas and artwork are never put to the test, probably to the detriment of both.
Rob
|
Linear Mode
