(Visual) Notes on Culture
  Can Artists and Critics be Friends?
This can of worms has been opened before, but I finally feel capable of talking about it. Recent storm surges in the contemporary art market have yielded a flurry of "too good to be true" writings about the arts world today. Renowned critics from The Guardian have started blogging, and their increased output has had a visible effect on the amount of arts writing that circulates. Since London and New York are benefiting from more savvy (or more gullible) art buyers, it is only natural that the scenes begin to deconstruct themselves. The article in question deals with practicing gallery artists and widely circulated critics. One category - guess which one - is on a continuous rise, while the other category is in sharp decline.

I am a critic yet also consider myself an artist, though not of the plastic arts. I have participated in, directed, or conceived performance pieces that have been seen by hundreds, have worked in films to varying capacities, and have acted in front of thousands. It is, admittedly, hard for critics or academics to also find careers as artists. Peter Wollen is known primarily for his film theory, but he has also directed a number of groundbreaking films and has a keen eye for art. Norman O. Brown is best remembered for his studies in psychoanalysis and religion, but he was also a poet. For example, one of his fragmented poems, "Metamorphosis II: Actaeon" appeared in New American Poetry and is part of his anthology Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis - it befits Walter Benjamin's dream of a poem made entirely of re-assembled quotations. Many critics or scholars have participated in the production of art in some fashion and therefore understand the ego-aspect of being an artist. While some will hold that critics and artists represent opposite ends of the spectrum - to some, they are the veritable Eros and Thanatos of the creative world - I maintain that they are more similar than can be quickly deduced.

To both the artist and the critic, art matters. Artists subscribe to various different dicta, though it can perhaps safely be said that they create because of a perceived lack...that is, their talents, once carried to fruition, will provide the world with something that it would have otherwise missed had they not produced a work of art. Likewise, critics "work" because they feel that the art establishment, writ large, can do better. Art is important to them, so they wish to challenge it, engage it, and hope that it can continue to affect its audience.

I am friends with artists of many different sorts. Some have immersed their talents in the realm of pop culture, while others make rarefied works for discerning audiences. Some are famous, others are not. Some create art as a career, others do not. For some, my relationship as friend precedes our professional relationship. In the past, I have approached artists professionally and have latter found that we got along well.

My point is that the artist/critic relationship can be symbiotic and need not be maliciously parasitic. Artists should challenge critics but should not be afraid to engage them on a personal level. Likewise, critics should understand that artists are both human and creative, and that the undesirable aspects of one need not necessarily affect the other.
Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home
Personal news and "found" images.

My Photo

Writer on film, culture, art, media, and music.

July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 /

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]