Everyone’s a Critic
Last week, I attended the National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture (NAMAC) conference in Austin. In one of the sessions I attended, someone spoke about how, in the computer age, it has become difficult to distinguish good and bad art, as there is simply an overabundance of the stuff. Amateurs sometimes get more attention than professionals (look at YouTube, for instance) and, since everyone can post their opinions — in blogs, in comments on YouTube or New York Times, etc — what’s the point of having art critics anymore? Since judgments on art and talent are completely subjective, why do people start buying tickets to a Broadway show when the critic at the New York Times raves? I guess even with the computer age, critics are not becoming obsolete. But, with all of the opinions out there, who should we listen to? Who’s to say that Ben Brantley of the Times is a better judge than bwaylova42, who might post a reaction to Brantley’s review?
Truthfully, I happen to like reading critics’ reviews and tend to follow those that I agree with (after viewing a piece of art myself). Even if it’s the review of some local community paper and the person never took an artistic course in their life, it’s still interesting to hear what they have to say. You can’t just react to a bad review with, “What do they know?!” They are just another audience member viewing the work. If they think it sucks, that’s their opinion and they are entitled to have it. The fact that they have a newspaper in which to express their opinion just sucks for you, if you’re the one the bad review is aimed at.
But, how do critics (and how do the masses) gauge artistic talent? I’ve yet to see the film, but I believe that’s one question the documentary “My Kid Could Paint That” attempts to answer. I don’t know the exact information about the film, but I believe it’s about this 7-year-old girl who is selling her artwork for thousands of dollars… and has been doing so since she was 3! Some people have said she’s brilliant and talented, others have said that the buyers are insane and are trying to keep up with the Joneses (those are the wealthy Joneses from Bel Air).
So, if the only reason prices are increasing for a work is because wealthy art collectors are trying to keep up with one another, I wonder if these collectors actually LIKE the artwork they’re purchasing.
But, in the end, who am I to judge their taste and motives? I still tend to think Jackson Pollock’s works were crap. My boss tried to convince me otherwise, saying that his works were created with a tremendous amount of brush control and technique, but I’m still not impressed. So, does this make me a tasteless, ignorant cretin? I don’t think so (my boss thinks so).
While at the conference last week, I read internal memos issued by publishing company staff that dismissed “The Bell Jar” and some other very famous literary works. Was the reader crazy? Again, I don’t think so. Everyone has a different opinion. Elaine on “Seinfeld” hated “The English Patient,” as did a lot of other people. But, it still won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
What am I trying to say? I don’t know… I guess we should listen to one of the greatest playwrights of all time — there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. But, then again, maybe Shakespeare was just a hack.
Login