What is Art Blog 1

-->

Niasia Brown

Art 11

2/25/2013

                        Do Critics Give An Accurate Description Off What Are Really Is?

While reading “Seeing Out Loud” some things reconfirmed my thoughts that art critics are not necessary. How can someone critic art? Art is supposed to be freedom of expression, I’m sure there are many artists that pay a critic to give them a good review. But then I wonder how can a critic give a review on what they think that person’s art is. If art is based from the individual’s perspective how can any critic give a valid interpretation of that person’s art? So in actuality a review from a critic is actually just his or she own opinion, and depending if the critic was paid, knows the artist or will gain notice by reviewing this piece. That will tell how genuine their review is.  I believe all critics should have some type of degree in that field or be at some level of expertise. If I were an artist I would find it very uncomfortable to know the person reviewing my artwork used to be a “truck driver by the name of the Jewish cowboy”. That person should at least have knowledge of the history of what he or she is reviewing. Aside from that I feel a critic should have the right to be as honest as they would like because in the end it is there opinion. An opinion doesn’t always have to be nice or understood by other people. I agree with the quote “They praise everything they see, or only describe” Some critics go with the trend on what is popular. Some critics are so afraid to hurt someone’s feeling or go against the grain that all the review’s are positive or just end up describing what they have seen. Which I feel is not fair to the reader art should be open to many types of interpretation. I should not be censored to follow some one else’s standard of what art is. In conclusion the reading was truly a good read and definitely arose a few question. As a people we must always question what we read is that critic ethical, knowledgeable and even non-biased.