Kathy Forer on sat 3 jul 04
On Jul 2, 2004, at 7:38 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> 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.
Yes, and those who do the work themselves lend physically supportive,=20
shared context and challenge with an unfamiliar critical eye.
I'm always appreciative of the comments of those who really know very=20
little about what they're looking at. They often respond with something=20=
I never thought of before. Not necessarily "na=EFve," more simply =
"fresh"=20
and comparatively uncorrupt.
People who work in unrelated fields also perceive and evaluate your=20
work in light of their own disciplines. A linguist will have a=20
different point of view from an electrical engineer or=20
anesthesiologist. A composer and a cowboy see things differently than a=20=
firefighter, tinsmith or flautist. And so on. and on.=20
...and though we may=20=
share perceptions, our untutored ones are usually molded by our most=20
familiar references.
Content provides meaning and context at that point. It is the=20
professional critic, ideally, who points out the unity of ideas and=20
references to the multiplicity of a many faceted public.
Kathy Forer
www.kforer.com=
| |
|
