![]() A Literary Journal and Resource for All the Arts P.O. Box 730 · Mt. Marion, NY 12456 Phone: (845) 246-6944 · Fax: (845) 246-6944 • info@arttimesjournal.com Cornelia Seckel, Publisher · Raymond J. Steiner, Editor |
THE ART OF ART CRITICISM
© A LECTURE By RAYMOND J. STEINER INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS AROUND TEN YEARS ago, while I was interviewing him for my book on The Art Students League, fellow Salmagundian Will Barnet shared some of his
views on criticism with me.
I had asked him why he thought critics seemed to hold so much
power these days. It was his thought that it began after WWII
when the G.I. Bill opened the doors to an unprecedented number
of people to go on to higher education. Almost overnight, we
suddenly had a larger and more spophisticated middle class.
This left us with an expanded cultural base, but one that almost
wholly depended on the written word. Newpapers and magazines
proliferated as a growing population of hungry readers demanded
more. Will felt, however, that although we now had a larger
number of people who now read, there were few who were taught
how to read art. Now Will was not talking about a particular kind of
art here — we were talking about all art, representational as well as non-representational. Granted that some
types of art are more difficult than others to understand —
but in reality all
art takes a certain level of sophisitication to properly read.
Another artist friend of mind, Ted Denyer, once pointed out
to me that when untutored museum-goers walk through a gallery
and are prompted to pause before a particular painting, they
do not always know what it is that caused them to stop in the
first place. “But,” Ted insisted, “as soon as they start looking
at the picture — ‘Oh, this a harbor scene, boats
in the foreground, people standing around on the docks’ —
then they stop looking at the painting.” As Will said, people may know how to read, but it takes
some practice to read a
work of art — so gallery and museum-goers largely
depend on what they read about art rather than on what
they are seeing. Slowly but surely, Will said, the critics rose
in power as they posed as interpreters and explicators, acting
as middlemen between the artist and the public. The problem
for artists, Will felt, was that it has now gotten to the point
that no matter how good an artist is, if he or she doesn’t have
someone write about them they had little chance of success in
today’s art-marketing climate which heavily relies on advertising
— in brief, the cleverly written word. Then he said an
extraordinary thing — something that has stayed with me
ever since. “Today,” Will said, “one word is worth a thousand
pictures.”
How did we get to this point? Historically, critics were not always given such power.
In fact, there was a time when critics used to get about as
much respect as Rodney Daingerfield. You remember him —
“I told my dentist that my teeth looked yellow — he told
me to wear a brown tie!”
Critics have long been held suspect. The historian Pliny
tells us that as far back as 400 BC., Zeuxis wrote, “Criticism
comes easier than craftsmanship.” Imagine that! 400 BC! They
were onto us way back then. Here are a few quotes from more modern sources:
Samuel Taylor Coleridge: “Reviewers are usually
people who would have been poets, historians,
biographers, if they could; they have tried their talents at
one or the other, and have failed; therefore they turn critics.”
Benjamin Disraeli: “You know who the critics are?
The men who have failed in literature and art.”
George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron:
“A man must serve his time to every trade
Save censure—critics are all ready-made.”
In a somewhat lighter vein…
Mark Twain once wrote to a friend: “Tomorrow
night I appear for the first time before a Boston audience—4000
critics!”
When I spoke about art criticism some years ago at the
Woodstock School of Art in Woodstock, New York, a member of
the audience — a painter — offered an observation
made by Brendan Behan. Behan said that a critic was like
a eunuch — he might know all the technical details of
how it was done — but couldn’t do it himself.
In his biography of that great author, Graham Robb
wrote that Victor Hugo once described critics as "fungus
at the foot of oaks."
Strong stuff — but perhaps the most sobering comment
to remember is Jean Sibelius’ observation that "no
statue has ever been put up of a critic." We could go on — Bartlett’s Quotations will more
than satisfy your appetite to revile critics — but since
so many had such negative things to say about critics, you have
to assume that where there’s so much smoke, that there just
has to be some fire — some truth behind such resentment.
Still, not all critics had enemies, however, and some
did reluctantly admit that they had a purpose…
William Somerset Maughm:
“People ask you for criticism, but they only want
praise.”
And some even thought that a critic ought to be shielded
from criticism ....
Howard Mumford Jones:
“Persecution is the first law of society because
it is always easier to suppress criticism than to meet it.”
And what about the artist as critic? One hears from time
to time that if anyone ought to criticize art, then it should
be the artist who does so...
However, Herbert George Wells wrote:
“An artist who theorizes about his work is no longer
artist but critic.”
And, although most prefer to remain anonymous, many have
noted that “If artists made good critics, there wouldn’t be
any bad artists.”
Over the years, I’ve been cheerily abused by —
and taking to heart — many observations made by artists
that I’ve come to know and with whom I’ve spent time. The late
Karl Fortess — Woodstock painter and class monitor
for Yasuo Kuniyoshi’s League summer sessions up in that colony
— once told me that he gave up worrying about what critics
said about him. “I consider myself lucky,” he said, “if I don’t
come off looking like a child-molester.” Jack Levine
— an artist I’ve known for many years and often had occasions
to visit and share meals with — had such a mental block
about critics that he always had difficulty recalling my name
each time we met. (He always remembered Cornelia’s name,
though). And, although I never had the opportunity to sit and
chat with him, I understand that Philip Guston —
when asked by some critic how come he took such a drastic tack
from his fellow artists up in Woodstock — echoed Ben Shahn
by retorting, “What are we — a baseball team?”
So, do we need critics or not? And, if we do need ‘em — do we have to accept as gospel everything they say? Does
Will Barnett’s comment that “one word is worth a thousand pictures”
ring true for you?
Let’s step back to take a long view — get a little
perspective here —and, since it is obvious that before
we could write about art we had to have art, let’s
begin there. ART: (Beginnings) As far as we
can tell, cave paintings come from the Pleistocene Age, some
40,000 years B.C. and, judging from the relative sophistication
of some of these works, it is clear that the making of images
— at least those odd squiggles and lines that we find
on ancient Stone-Age tombs and cliff faces — must have
been around for a good time longer. Otto Rank, in his Art and Artists, argues
— rather convincingly, to my mind — that pre-historic
image-making represents the first signs of an other-worldly
— or “spiritual” — exploration into what our early
ancestors could not comprehend. We cannot decipher these early
carvings of geometric patterns or seemingly aimless squiggles
— but Rank proposes that they must have meant something
to those stone-age image-makers. Whatever these markings represent,
they are non-representational — abstract, if you will
— and apparently unrelated to anything these early “artists”
might be seeing in their world. Hence, Rank surmises that they
represent something “inner” — something “other” —
something “beyond” — in his terms, some primitive attempt
at expressing the “inexpressible.” Today, we might term these
expressive markings “religious” — analogous to our own
intentions to define or understand or come to grips with a power
beyond our comprehension. By the time we get to the cave paintings, refined tools
and a better understanding of mixing pigments led to a much
more sophisticated image-making process. However, a major change
occurred in that it appears that artists began to stop looking
“heavenward” for inspiration and started looking “earthward”
— started looking at and reproducing what he could
see rather than try to express the ineffable things he felt.
In short, by the time we get to buffalos and deer depicted
on cave walls, his art became representational as he began to
imitate or reproduce his physical — rather than his “spiritual”
— world.
Now, whether or not we accept Otto Ranks’s theory that
our stone-age, image-making, ancestors were in fact practicing
some kind of “proto-religion” — one thing is absolutely
certain and that is that image-making — at least in its
earliest stages — predated either spoken or written language
by what appears to be thousands upon thousands of years.
So, let’s make clear right now: Contrary to popular
belief — religious or otherwise — “In the beginning”
it was not the word but the image.
So much for art at this point — now let’s turn
to artists. ARTISTS: Although image-making has been around since pre-historic times, at first —and for a long
time afterward—there was no “art criticism” since, effectively,
there were no artists—or,
for that matter, “art” as we understand that term.
As far as we know — at least in the history of Western
art — from early Greek society on and up through the middle
ages, “artists” were not thought of as “artists” but simply
as artisans — the Greeks called them banausos.
In social class they were ranked among barbers, cooks and smiths.
Plato, as many of you know, banned not
only poets but artists as well from his ideal Republic. He did
so since by his time most artists were representational —
i.e., imitating nature — only making copies of the world
— and, to Plato’s mind, this was a mistake since the visual
world was already a copy of his ideal world of pure form. Without
attempting any extensive explication of Platonic philosophy
here, Plato envisioned the world as a place of becoming
and the ideal world—“heaven” if you will—as a place
of being. In this absolute ideal world all forms were
in their purest state. On earth they merely approximated that
ideal, always becoming, always striving for their purest expression.
Simplistically stated, there existed an “ideal” tree, for example,
in the world of being; earthly trees, as evidenced by their
manifold shapes, merely strive toward perfection in this world
of becoming — in our world. Artists were banned from his
ideal Republic, therefore, because they merely made copies of
copies, managing only to take us one step further from
the ideal of truth, goodness and beauty that Plato felt characterized
that perfect state of ideal Being. And even when some artists began to be singled out —
as special or different from other artisans — the work
of art did not
even “belong” to the artist and was viewed not as a product
of human creativity but as something “god-inspired.” The human
maker was only a conduit, an animated channeler doing the bidding
of some higher force — not unlike those early image-makers,
in fact, that Otto Rank speaks of who were responding to some
outside, unknowable urge.
This attitude toward art and artists persisted —
with the exception of the Renaissance Period which we will return
to momentarily — well into and through the middle ages
and, as those of you who have studied art history know, most
“artists” were nameless — nameless since who did
the creations of craftsmen in the Middle Ages was largely irrelevant,
the work done only in the name of religion or the state or whatever
higher power was supporting or paying the maker. A carving,
a painting on a wall, a delicately crafted steeple, an ornate
palace entryway, was merely a part of a greater effort which
had nothing to do with what would become known as “art” —
but everything to do with power, politics or religion.
Pieces of what we now call “art,” then, weren’t signed because
there were no “artists” whose egos as creators signified. At
this point in time, “aesthetics” — the study of beauty
— was not even thought of.
During the Italian Renaissance — that short period
of creative flowering — two things dramatically changed:
the first was the attitude towards art and, the second, by extension,
the attitude toward those who made it — the artists.
One man who stands at a sort of crossroads of this flowering
was Cennino Cennini, an Italian who lived from
1370 to 1440 and who wrote Il libro dell’arte, a kind
of handbook for artists, defining especially the terms of apprenticeship
as he then saw it. Although he didn’t succeed in moving artists
up the social scale any, he did what no one had previously done
— he wrote about the technical and aesthetic aspects of
a trade that — if known and transmitted by artists to
their apprentices since time immemmorial — had been largely
ignored by nearly everyone of any social, economic, religious,
or political standing. In effect, he wrote the first art book
or book about art in Western Tradition that has survived and
come down to us. SHORT HISTORY OF ART HISTORY, ART CRITICISM:
Cennino’s little book — whatever it did for the artist — opened up a Pandora’s box
that, to this day, is still pretty much a mixed bag and one
that is definitely still with us. It wouldn’t be long before
other writers would jump onto the bandwagon, giving their opinions
and their slant on all aspects of the artist’s trade. Cennino
was followed during the Italian Renaissance by Lorenzo Ghiberti
(1378-1455) and Leon
Battista Alberti (1404-1472), both of whom extended the
discussion to include earlier as well as contemporary artists
and methods. Artwriting — as a distinct discipline —
was thus born — but still, in the beginning, pretty much
a hodge-podge of technical how-to, aesthetics, artist’s profiles,
art history, and judgment-making.
Only gradually did things separate themselves out, with
some writers now concentrating on one or another aspect rather
than attempting to write about the whole business of art-making.
Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), for example, is given credit
for putting in writing the very first commentary on landscape
painting. Pietro Aretino, (1492-1556) is often given
the distinction of being the first art critic while Georgio
Vasari (1511-1574) is often called the father of art history.
Today, however, none of these early writings actually conform
to what we might strictly call art reviews, art history,
or art criticism. Dürer’s commentary on landscape was a passing
comment contained in a larger treatise; Aretino did base his
comments on actual works but wrote about many other things as
well — and Vasari was writing more what we would call
artist biography than he was writing art history.
It would take years before these various kinds of artwriting
would “harden” into distinct disciplines, most notably during
the Age of Enlightenment and only after a good bit of it passed
through the rigorous and logical German minds of such thinkers
as Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) and Jakob
Burckhardt (1818-1897) — men of letters such as Johann
Wolfgang van Goethe (1749-1832) and Gotthold Ephraim
Lessing (1729-1783) — and such philosophers as Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Others, of course, joined in the fray, and such thinker/writers
as the French Denis Diderot (1713-1784), did in fact
serve as an early art “critic” —and, to my estimation,
a very fine one — giving his opinion on the works of various
artists as he traveled around in search of prospects for wealthy
patrons, including in his letters his assessments of art. Such
wealthy patrons — usually royalty, incidentally —
really got the ball rolling for artists, boosting them up the
social scale. Once the idea caught on that art was special,
was worthwhile having in one’s possession, artists began to
be wooed, even invited to palaces around the world to serve
kings and queens as court painters. Since many royal personages
knew nothing about art, they had to depend on the members of
their more cultured retinue to carry out their assessments for
them, to tell them which artists to buy from or to invite to
court — thus, such men as Diderot proliferated —
and the role of the middleman became entrenched — (more
about this “middleman” in a moment). Diderot, you might know,
played a large part in Catherine the Great’s art collection
housed in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg. Catherine claimed
to know little of art, but she did know that owning it
represented culture — and she bought it by the truck-load
to prove just how cultured she was. She bought entire collections,
relatively unaware of the artists — or the individual
pieces — which made up those collections. You might also
know that Catherine’s father, Peter the Great, who began the
Hermitage collection and who also knew little about art, was
said to have given his agents one simple directive: “Don’t buy
bad pictures.” This ignorance on the part of royal patrons highlights
that such middlemen became necessary fixtures on the art scene.
Thus, people who could not paint a picture or sculpt an object,
trained themselves to write about art—they critiqued,
they wrote artists’ biographies, they reviewed, they wrote art
history. Courses grew up at universities. The makers —
the artists — and the patrons — the buyers —
eventually found themselves separated by a formidable army of
“experts,” middlemen that eventually included curators, museum
directors, dealers, gallery owners, and teachers — in
addition to all and sundry who chose to become artwriters.
Now remember, this is an extremely abbreviated overview
— many important figures have been left out — figures
who have added much to the business and development of artwriting.
The reason for this brief overview is to make just one important
point: And that is that artwriting — in its many manifestations
— is still in the making and still pretty much of a mixed
bag. Unlike Latin, artwriting is not a dead language and it
is being changed from day to day. Pick up any trade magazine
from one of the artwriter’s organizations and you’ll see that
hardly any of them agree with each other let alone with the
artists. I am a member of the International Association of Art
Critics, the American Society for Aesthetics and a few more
such groups and I can tell you that the articles in their journals
and newsletters can make your head spin. I also review a good
many art books and if you learn anything from them, you begin
to see that although many have joined the bandwagon of middlemen
no one has yet cornered the market on answers. Only a few years
ago, for example, I received a set of books—the first
five in a projected series of many from the Oxford University
Press which promised to look at art history — and I quote
— “from a fresh perspective.”
All of which points up why I have entitled my lecture,
“The Art of Art Criticism” — since, like art itself,
it is in constant flux, still in the making, still, in Plato’s
words, “becoming” — and far from being a “science.”
The very latest “cutting edge” critics — and I
am thinking now of the philosopher Arthur Danto — even
suggest that we are back to square one. In one of his books,
After the End of Art, Danto maintains that the very paradigm
that brought the concept of “art” into being at the beginning
of the Renaissance has collapsed, no longer applicable to what
is now termed as “art” — indeed, he calls into question
the very notion of “art,” claiming that since no rules can be
brought to bear on a definition of it, any object has
the right to be called “art.” He gives credit to what is called
“Pop” art for the collapse, and to Warhol specifically for his
“genius” in bringing it about. Thus, in this view, we are back
to a pre-Cennini age, another period of “Dark Ages” where people
simply made things — usually for other reasons than for
creating “art” since no one at that time had ever thought of
placing these objects apart as “art.” The line once drawn
between a box of brillo and a picture of a box of brillo has,
for some, blurred for all time and there is no longer felt to
be a distinction between art and non-art. If Arthur Danto is
correct in his assumptions, we might say we are now in a “Danto’s
Inferno” where the terms “art” and “artist” are no longer relevant,
each of us reduced to naked sinners maneuvering for position
in a series of concentric circles of a modern-day, art-market
Hell.
Still, for all the claims of its “death,” art, meanwhile,
is still being produced, changing as new styles, techniques
and materials are discovered and mastered, the artists —
whether hired by kings or not — busily going about their
work. Artists have heard about the “death of art” before and
don’t seem to take the pronouncement very seriously. I recall
a small dinner party up in Woodstock some thirty years ago at
the home of Jane Jones, the wife of the muralist Wendell Jones.
Present were Lewis Rubenstein, a painter, his wife, an art historian,
Eugene Ludins, also a painter, his wife Hannah Small, a sculptor,
myself, and, of course, Jane Jones, herself a painter. Lewis
remarked that the first time he had physically seen Picasso’s
“Guernica,” he was stunned. At the time, he considered it a
landmark work that had captured the ultimate in artistic meaning
and political impact. Then, some few years later, he had seen
a newsfilm of the same attack on Guernica and felt that so effective
was this filmic documentary that, for ever after, Picasso’s
painting could only be seen as a decorative but irrelevant footnote.
“Painting,” Lewis mused, “seemed doomed to irrelevance.” Wow! I thought to myself. That’s pretty profound. And
I began to form my next editorial — my next “Peek &
Piques! — in my mind. But then, Eugene Ludins spoke up. “Suppose Vincent van
Gogh had a camera and instead of painting his self-portrait,
he had just taken pictures of himself by using a time setter.
Do you think we’d get the same intensity in snapshots as we
find in his paintings?” Wow! I said to myself again…and so the process goes
on. Now, again, I’m not going to attempt a serious art history
course here and run down all the schools and movements and so
forth that continue to crop up after art is declared “dead”
by the critical coroners, but the second point I think
is important to come away with is that it is art that
has always been and remains to be the prime mover in
the artwriting business. Art, because it preceded a verbal or written language, precedes all artwriting —
in fact, makes
artwriting possible. If this is so, then the old saying that
“one picture is worth a thousand words” is still a valid one.
Right now, in some studio, in some place on this planet, an
artist is creating something that will alter art history, art
criticism, or the study of aesthetics. It has always been so
and, by necessity, will continue to be so. Artists not aware of their history, might be led astray
by what they read — but they ought not do so. The artwriters
are always going to be a step behind. To my mind, artwriters
can only witness styles, methods, innovations, schools,
techniques, materials, trends — they cannot (and should
not) predict them or try to direct them. As Goethe wisely pointed out, "Genuine works of art carry their own aesthetic
theory implicit within them and suggest the standards according
to which they are to be judged."
The gulf that separates the artist from the critic is
no small thing. If we do not yet fully understand the difference
between creative thought and analytic thought — and both
can partake of the other, with analytic thought being creative
and creative thought being at times analytic — the fact
remains that there is a crucial difference between both ways
of looking at the world. Perhaps an analogy might help. I’m
sure that no one in this room believes that the experience of
listening to a Mozart concert is the same as reading a critique
of it the following day. The same may be said of any work of
art compared to a written exegesis of that work of art. It takes
two different “heads” — two different mind sets not only
to produce, but also to understand — both
products. Kant differentiated the two different processes
as being a “judging faculty” and a ”productive faculty” —
and it is a very rare person indeed who is equipped to effectively
do both kinds of mind work.
From time to time, I’ve written about the difficulties
in writing about art. Briefly, the crux of the problem lies
in the translation of one method of communication — one
"language" — into another. Everyone knows —
or ought to know — that you cannot read a Japanese Haiku
poem in an English translation. This is true of all translation
from one written language into another. The problem is exacerbated
even further, however, when you are attempting to translate
art — a visual language — into words — a linear,
verbal language. Writing about art-making is not the same as
writing about a particular picture. Only the picture “says”
what it wants to “say.” If the painter wanted to put it into
words, he or she would have written an essay or a poem or a
short story. Richard Pantell — an artist, printmaker,
and teacher at the Art Students League — puts it in proper
perspective when he objects to galleries demanding “artists’
statements” to hang alongside their work. “If they invited a
poet to speak,” he asks, “would they ask him to paint a picture?”
Rick, of course, is right. Art is a language in
its own right and has always spoken on its own terms. Like music,
it not only predates a spoken language, but also has its own
set of rules — its own “grammar”, so to speak —
and has been communicating on its own terms ever since its appearance
in prehistoric times. We do not have to speak Italian, for example,
to “get” what the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa “tells” us.
Nor German to “get” Beethoven or Mozart. Art and music are individual
and distinct forms of expression, and both have been communicating
on their own for untold centuries before the critics got into
the picture. Both are in fact more direct means of communication
than the spoken or written language — and anyone not convinced
that the word is indeed an inferior means of communication need
only consider what daily transpires in the United Nations. Words
have always fallen far short of transmitting truth or reality.
Once again we find that one picture ought to be worth
a thousands words — and not vice-versa.. In relation to our topic this evening, the real problem
begins when artwriters do try to “explain” or “define”
or even “describe” a work of art. (Example: Display object used
in writing classes to demonstrate how difficult it is to translate
a physical artifact into the abstraction of a written and/or
spoken word.)
WHY I WRITE
So, if it is so difficult — and still an “artform” very much like art itself
— and if, as I say, probably impossible to do, why do
I write about art and artists? Believe me when I say, there
are times I am not sure. To clear some air, let me first point
out what kinds of artwriting I do for ART Times
— Each one is different, each one with a different purpose
or thrust — in fact, each kind of writing labeled differently
under what are called in the newspaper trade, "standing
heads."
Profiles: From time to time, I write profiles
on living artists. A profile — for me — is a look
into an artist’s inner world. What I attempt to do in a profile
is to uncover an artist’s motives for doing what he or she does.
Although I usually include examples of the artist’s work in
my profiles, I do not sit in judgment — do not “critique”
— the quality of the work. My purpose is to let my readers
know who the artist is, something about his/her motives for
creating art, and to let them get a representative overview
of the work. Again, the focus is on the person and not
the product.
Reviews: When I write a review, my purpose is
to let my readers know about an exhibition that is presently
being shown or soon to be shown. My reviews aim to be timely
— that is, written in advance of or at the very beginning
of an exhibition so that readers may decide whether or not to
go and see the show. Generally, this is an overview —
a little about the artist being shown, a little about the work,
a little about the time and place in which the artist lived
and worked. I say “lived” and “worked” since my reviews are
always on major shows of past masters — dead artists.
I do not “review” the exhibitions of living artists. (Aside).
Critiques: In my critiques, I try to critically
analyze the work of a living artist as it appears in a given
exhibition. At times, my critiques appear in print after
a show has closed since my purpose is to assess and not to invite —
It is the business of the exhibiting host (or of the reviewer)
to entice viewers and not that of the critic. To the best of
my ability, I bring to bear everything I know about art and
art history, about artists and their techniques, to make value
judgments about the body of work being shown to me. This, of
course, is the most difficult kind of artwriting to do —
and most often what causes the most flak. "Who are you
to judge me—etc., etc., etc." Look — let’s face it: a Critique is
an opinion. And whether or not our multi-cultural, pluralistic,
no-holds-barred, politically correct, open society likes it,
all opinions are not alike
or of equal worth. I’m pretty sure that even the most vocal
pluralist, the one who screams the loudest that there should
be no rules or standards for art, will consult a doctor
and not a carpenter, a butcher, or the man on the street, when
they feel that little twinge in the chest.
And yet, even the prognosis of a doctor is still an opinion
— since medicine, like art and artwriting, is not a science
but itself an art. Of course, there are opinions — and
there are opinions. Theoretically, at least, a critic —
like a doctor — has done some homework in the field and
brings a certain amount of expertise in making judgments.
Editorials: I use my editorials—my “Peeks
& Piques!” — as a catch-all. In these essays,
I vent, saying things that I do not feel are appropriate in
a profile, a review, or a critique. (Anecdote: “Dust on frames).
I’m fortunate in this respect since unlike many artwriters who
are either pressed for space or under assignment and must include
irrelevant commentary in their reviews or critiques, I can insert
my piques apart from my artwriting. It’s a luxury not many artwriters
have. To paraphrase Mel Brooks — It’s good to be the Editor!
Anyway, in my “Peeks & Piques!”
I can wander, philosophize, make grand conclusions,
argue and reveal — to my heart’s content. My more astute
readers have come to figure out that these “Peeks & Piques!”
offer a pretty good clue as to what biases lie beneath my
Profiles, my Reviews, and my Critiques.
Biases: A word about bias. No one can be totally
objective — unless they are dead. Just like artists, critics
have biases. My viewpoint, like that of artists’, grows out
of my experience and my knowledge — it can’t be any other
way. Look!—It’s a human thing! My education has gone a
long way toward forming my judgment-making abilities. I received
my BA and MA in Liberal Arts from SUNY New Paltz. I began as
an art major and eventually switched over to Literature with
minors in Philosophy and a smattering of art history. Practically
all of my graduate work concentrated on the art of criticism
— mostly literary criticism but, because of my interest
in art, a bit of art criticism too. Criticism — in all of its guises — whether
of literature, music, drama or art — is serious business
and I have always held the discipline in great respect. I collect
criticism quotes because I do respect it and because I think
it is a never-ending job to be good at it. I vividly recall
a comment that
Hal Levitt, my one-time theatre writer for ART TIMES, made over lunch one day. “When a theatre critic pans a show,” Hal said,
“he not only helps to put a play off the stage —he puts
actors, prop-men, light-men, costume makers, make-up artists
— the whole crew backstage who make a show possible —
out of work.” A serious business. A heavy responsibility. Behind my artwriting, then, lies who I am and what my
philosophy is. My Liberal Arts education has essentially made
me a humanist and I tend to seek out those things in life which
support my desire to fulfill all aspects of my own human-ness.
I enjoy — and respond to — those things which answer
— or at least speak to — my intellectual, spiritual,
emotional, and psychological needs. My preference is to have
art engage all those needs simultaneously — and
when that happens, I’m exhilarated — and moved to write
about that exhilaration. As Bernard Berenson once put it: “Art
ought to be life enhancing” — and I heartily agree with
him. In fact, the reason I turned to artwriting
some thirty years ago, was the belief that artists — and
artists alone — because they were descendants of those
early image-makers “in tune” with some higher reality —
were the only people who might satisfy my ever-expanding
humanist appetite. Although a great many artists have indeed
remained artisans — picture and object makers —
I believe that some artists are in fact “inspired.” And, I mean
“inspired” in the original sense of that word — “breathed
into,” presumably by some higher power — and that such
artists are privy to insights unavailable to the rest of mankind.
This is the bias — and I admit it is a very big one —
that I bring to a work of art.
For some — and I return again to Arthur Danto —
this identifies me as a “response-based” critic — i.e
an idealogue who evaluates what I see from a set of beliefs,
rather than as an an objective philosophical observer who assigns
equal weight to all things until proven less valuable to mankind.
I do not necessarily think that it is wrong for me to be so.
I am, after all, an organism that responds to stimuli —
and if this particular organism is bounded by his experiences
than I don’t necessarily see this as wrong or incorrect either.
No more, incidentally, than I see an artist bound by his or
her experiences as wrong or incorrect. Effectively, it simply
means that for some critics, some artists can have no relevance
— and, of course, the opposite is also true — for
some artists, some critics can have an equal lack of relevance.
The bottom line is that we are all limited beings condemned
or privileged — depending upon your outlook — to
live out those limitations.
If I could name all my biases, chances are I’d try to
correct them. So I’m sure they’re there — and my readers
usually point them out to me. There is one final bias, however,
that I’d like to address. I do not like to critique or review
group shows — and I very rarely do. This is because I’m
a people person and group shows do not allow for any kind of
in-depth analysis — whether in a review or, especially,
in a critique. All you can do is name a lot of names —
and that’s a job for the local newspapers and they do it effectively
and well. I can’t add much to that process.
I’d like to share a few more quotes, this time reading
a few of those which I have especially admired and which I have
tried to emulate over the years by patterning my own criticism
after them. If I can some day attain some of the wisdom they
show, I’ll be happy (and so will a lot of artists I write about,
I’m sure).
Joseph Addison:
“A true critic ought to dwell rather upon excellencies
than imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of an
[artist], and communicate to the world such things as are worth
their observation.”
George Saintsbury:
“Criticism is the endeavor to find, to know, to love,
to recommend, not only the best, but all the good, that has
been known and thought and written in the world.”
Matthew Arnold:
“I am bound by my own definition of criticism: a
disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that
is known and thought in the world.”
And here’s my all-time favorite and one that I have printed
and put up over my desk:
Henry James:
“To criticise is to appreciate, to appropriate, to take
intellectual possession, to establish in fine a relationship
with the criticised thing and to make it one’s one.”
“We must grant the artist his subject, his idea, his
donnée: our criticism is applied only to what he makes
of it…If we pretend to respect the artist at all, we must allow
him his freedom of choice…”
“The effect, if not the prime office, of criticism is
to make our absorption and our enjoyment of the things that
feed the mind as aware of itself as possible, since that awareness
quickens the mental demand, which thus in turn wanders further
and further for pasture.”
“It is art that makes life, makes interest, makes
importance… and I know of no substitute whatever for the force
and beauty of its presence.”
And finally, placing myself at the opposite poles of
cutting-edge criticism, I readily admit my admiration for the
thoughts of David Hume as expressed in his Of the
Standards of Taste when he identifies the good critic as
a person of good sense who is practiced, open to a wide range
of art, able to compare and, thus, able to discern the beauties
of design and reasoning. I’d be more than satisfied to be such a critic —
to be such a person.
CONCLUSIOn: Let me wind up
by saying that I write about art because I believe that genuine
art is one of the few things in this short, brutish life that
is worthwhile. I don’t want to get gushy here, but I think that
artists are among our most important resources — genuine
national treasures — and ought not get squandered or abused
or wasted. I spoke earlier of limitations — if any
of us can break through those limitations it is the artist whose
genius and vision allows us to see beyond our human condition.
If Otto Rank is anywhere near correct, the true artist has inherited
that ability from his earliest stone-age counterpart. Such artists — sadly — are few but it is
they who continue to make the critics revise their pronouncements.
It is they who push the process along from stalemate. It is
probably they who will deliver us from what I jokingly call
Danto’s Inferno. So — it is more important to save a true
artist then it is to save a whale, a snowy owl, or a baby seal.
Ever since that first caveman etched some squiggles on a cave
wall, we have been steadily evolving from barbarism to civilization.
Artists — when they are genuine — civilize us —
enrich us — ennoble us. I want my writing to acknowledge that debt and to encourage
such artists to continue.
Theirs is not an easy task. They are not making buckles
or bullets or beads — you know, things that we really
need — things that might earn them a decent living.
Each one goes back to the silence and loneliness of a studio,
facing a blank canvas or a block of stone, waiting for that
call that only they can hear. When they are serious —
when they are genuine — what they come up with will probably
not make any money but will civilize — enrich —
or ennoble — one more of us. I want my writing to bear witness to that fact.
Before I close, I can’t resist sharing just one more
quote on critics. John Osborne wrote that "Asking a working
writer [or artist] what he thinks about critics is like asking
a lamppost what it feels about dogs." I hope I’ve enlarged your thoughts just a little
bit about critics this evening. We need not think of them as
either “fungus at the foot of oaks” — as Victor Hugo would
have it — or as having some inner secrets as to how we
should look at or evaluate art — as too many now do. As
long as you keep in mind that they are neither infallibly wise
or incredibly stupid, you should be able to steer a reasonable
course through most of today’s artwriting. Good luck in separating the wheat from the chaff —
and thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you.
Q&A.
REFERENCES:
Holt,
Elizabeth Gilmore The Triumph of Art for the Public: The
Emerging Role of Exhibitions and Critics. 1979.
Anchor Books, Garden City, NY. Kultermann,
Udo The History of Art History 1993. Abaris Books, Inc.
USA. Venturi,
Lionello History of Art Criticism 1964. E.P. Dutton &
Co., Inc. New
York.
Lecture,
Raymond J. Steiner August
24, 1996, at the Woodstock School of Art, Woodstock, NY Revised
April 7, 1997, delivered at The National Arts Club, NYC Revised
April 2, 1998, delivered at the National Academy of Design School, NYC, Revised
May 31, 2007 delivered at the Salmagundi Club, NYC.
|