NaCl(aq)

On Art Criticism

Tonight at The Junto, the topic was Art Criticism. I like art. I certainly like criticism. I like open discussions on the value and “correctness” of a variety of topics. So I was especially looking forward to this panel. But through the conversation, being unfamiliar with formal art history and education, I found myself lost in the conversation, which to me, surrounded the lack of formal critiques by professional artists and critics in Philadelphia. And since I’m not at all interested in what “the pros” are saying in newspapers, magazines, and blogs about art (locally or otherwise), I found myself with more questions than answers. Please help me answer them with your thoughts.

Whose criticism matters? Is it A) the educated artist? Is it B) the masses (the average joe art appreciator)?

If A:

Does anyone but the artist care about this criticism?

If NO: Is it for promotion, to sell your art? Is it to better your art? Why? What can a critic tell you that you can’t feel yourself in the creation process? Is it to validate you work, to assure you that what you’re doing is “right”?

If YES: Is it to validate that what YOU think is good/bad is thought to be good/bad by someone who you think knows what they’re talking about? Is it to help you better understand the art? Is it so you don’t need to feel that you paid too much money to hang it on your wall?

If B:

By what means is this criticism considered useful? Is there a direct correlation between criticism and sales? (If I’m selling, my art is good; if I’m not, it probably sucks.) Is “general feeling” factored? (“A lot of the people who viewed my work seemed to be genuinely interested and engaged, so it was a success.”)

So I’m wondering what art criticism means to you, readers, though you may be few. Whose opinions matter to you when it comes to art? And what’s the useful application for this criticism? Are praise and censure equally useful? Why or why not?