Lili Krakowski on thu 1 jul 04
A man was ill. His doctor suggested a remedy. The man loved the =
remedy. But he overdid it. He got worse. His wife blamed those who =
enabled him to overdo. End of story. Malcolm cites a man urged to =
take art classes, who exhibited, was denounced by a critic, got sicker. =
So? A physician suggest a little nip of brandy might help a patient =
feel better. The patient loves the stuff, becomes a drunk, is arrested =
and thrown in jail Wife takes after liquor store or cops-- WHAT does =
this have to do with criticism? =20
I do not remember Mr Canaday, who, I gather earned his living being =
clever about other people's work. Many people--late night TV show hosts =
for instance--earn their living being clever about political events, =
happening in the lives of the famous....So? There are people whose =
profession is to be clever.
There is insult, and rudeness. "'Three Little Pigs' stinks"
There is reviewing: "Although 'Three Little Pigs' is meant to be a =
delightful entertainment for children 3-7, the play as performed last =
night --I hope for the last time--at the Kiddie Playhouse--was terrible. =
[Reasons A, B. C.] Hated it."
Then there is criticism: " Seen in the context of Marxist economic =
theory, 'Three Little Pigs' is a transparent defence of laisser faire =
economics--sweetened, as these defences often are-- by a display of =
noblesse oblige. We need hardly point out that if the first two pigs =
had been paid decent wages they would not have had to live in straw or =
wood huts. They would, like the entrepreneur pig, have been able to =
build brick houses. Are we to be lulled into accepting the status quo =
because Entrepreneur Pig took the other two in? ETC ETC.
To back up. Saying that another potter's work stinks-- if I remember =
the flap, that was the gist of the message, is not criticism nor =
reviewing. It is plain unvarnished rudeness.
To say: I saw Tiddly Winks's work on his web page, and I really find =
his color scheme disturbing...that is a review.
Citicism would be: When one considers Tiddly Winks's work in the =
context he claims--a blending of Southwestern Native influences with =
those of Inuit carvings, one comes away more confused than delighted. =
It seems to this critic that the blending of disparities for no =
self-evident reason....
Cure for this particular pain: Repeat after all of us: " I am sorry. =
I overreached myself and fell on my face. I hurt a sweet person's =
feelings by being bluntly rude , and I apologize..
And yes. "Three Little Pigs" was the first play I saw. One of the =
best. And yes, I could write a full page critique. And, no, I won't
Lili
Malcolm Schosha on fri 2 jul 04
I hope that the arguments of the past will end. I would rather that
the focus will be on the present and future, without nursing old
grudges.
There is nothing in what you say about the nature and use of
criticism that I disagree with. You are quite right about that.
However, The INTENT of my message was not to endorse John Canaday's
approach to art criticism, or to blame anyone for the personal train
wreck that occurred as a result of what he said many years ago. My
message was to describe a way to deal with painful criticism when it
does occur, realizing that these things will occur in life from time
to time.
Malcolm Schosha
...................
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lili Krakowski
wrote:
> A man was ill. His doctor suggested a remedy. The man loved the
remedy. But he overdid it. He got worse. His wife blamed those who
enabled him to overdo. End of story. Malcolm cites a man urged to
take art classes, who exhibited, was denounced by a critic, got
sicker. So? A physician suggest a little nip of brandy might help a
patient feel better. The patient loves the stuff, becomes a drunk,
is arrested and thrown in jail Wife takes after liquor store or cops-
- WHAT does this have to do with criticism?
>
> I do not remember Mr Canaday, who, I gather earned his living being
clever about other people's work. Many people--late night TV show
hosts for instance--earn their living being clever about political
events, happening in the lives of the famous....So? There are people
whose profession is to be clever.
>
> There is insult, and rudeness. "'Three Little Pigs' stinks"
>
> There is reviewing: "Although 'Three Little Pigs' is meant to be a
delightful entertainment for children 3-7, the play as performed last
night --I hope for the last time--at the Kiddie Playhouse--was
terrible. [Reasons A, B. C.] Hated it."
>
> Then there is criticism: " Seen in the context of Marxist economic
theory, 'Three Little Pigs' is a transparent defence of laisser
faire economics--sweetened, as these defences often are-- by a
display of noblesse oblige. We need hardly point out that if the
first two pigs had been paid decent wages they would not have had to
live in straw or wood huts. They would, like the entrepreneur pig,
have been able to build brick houses. Are we to be lulled into
accepting the status quo because Entrepreneur Pig took the other two
in? ETC ETC.
>
> To back up. Saying that another potter's work stinks-- if I
remember the flap, that was the gist of the message, is not criticism
nor reviewing. It is plain unvarnished rudeness.
>
> To say: I saw Tiddly Winks's work on his web page, and I really
find his color scheme disturbing...that is a review.
>
> Citicism would be: When one considers Tiddly Winks's work in the
context he claims--a blending of Southwestern Native influences with
those of Inuit carvings, one comes away more confused than
delighted. It seems to this critic that the blending of disparities
for no self-evident reason....
>
> Cure for this particular pain: Repeat after all of us: " I am
sorry. I overreached myself and fell on my face. I hurt a sweet
person's feelings by being bluntly rude , and I apologize..
>
> And yes. "Three Little Pigs" was the first play I saw. One of
the best. And yes, I could write a full page critique. And, no, I
won't
>
> Lili
Kathi LeSueur on sat 3 jul 04
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> I hope that the arguments of the past will end. I would rather that
> the focus will be on the present and future, without nursing old
> grudges.>>>>>
Clayart is a print medium. But I'm sure there are many who read it as if
it is spoken conversation, each putting his own spin, voice inflection,
and attitude on what is being read. As a result people take offense
where none is intended. This reads to confrontations online that cause
hurt feelings and anger.
Perhaps the solution is to read our own e-mail carefully and consider
how it might be read by others. We know little if anything about the
lives and backgrounds of most of the members of Clayart. Unless they
tell us, we have no idea their level of expertise or lack of. Personal
attacks really do not further the debate and discussion. Slow down,
read, and think before hitting that send button.
Kathi
Lee Love on sat 3 jul 04
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
>I hope that the arguments of the past will end. I would rather that
>the focus will be on the present and future, without nursing old
>grudges.
>
>
Yeah folks, let's cut Malcolm some slack. I didn't see anything wrong
with the latest post.
I guess for me, I primarily listen to critics who actually
make the work they are evaluating, and usually of people whose work I
appreciate. Not to say their isn't room for scholars looking at
work. But it seems to me, that the best criticism for people actually
doing the work is from other people who are actually doing the
work. The non-working critics are primarily writing for people who
are not doing the work.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/Mashiko/ Commentary On Pottery
Geoffrey Gaskell on sun 4 jul 04
Lee Love wrote:
> The non-working critics are primarily writing for people who
> are not doing the work.
Is this in that peculiar language known as "artspeak"?
Geoffrey Gaskell
| |
|
