Aryana and Kyle are guest bloggers and moderators for this week, and they are eager to dialogue with you about the role and impact of Art Criticism.
In class, Drs. Hall and Cleworth referenced the beginning of Art Criticism
at the French Salon during the 18th century. It is not surprising that Art Criticism began
to flourish during the Enlightenment, as this intellectual and philosophical
movement prompted many new ideas, including a shift in how art was viewed by
the public and artists alike.
The Salon was an extension of the Royal Academy, which, since its
inception under Louis XIV, had developed to set the standards for art not only
in France but throughout Europe. The
Academy adhered to classical training, where art was taught according to a set
of established rules. During the 18th
century, these standards began to be challenged (i.e., the “battle” between the
Poussinistes and the Rubénistes) and the stylistic monopoly
established by the Academy began to be disrupted.
Dennis Diderot, a French philosophe
and the first renowned art critic, upheld the value of artists (like Greuze and
Chardin) who asserted their uniqueness and independence from the strict
standards of Academic (history) painting and the prevailing (Rococo) taste. Diderot’s criticism asserted
that art should be didactic – serve as an exemplum
virtutis – and have a moralizing effect.
He also addressed questions like “How is beauty related to perception?” “What constitutes the beautiful?” and “What
makes art successful?” The framework in
which Diderot organized his critiques is a method that continues to be used
today. (For additional information on
Diderot, see this short article.)
The Salons initially showcased only the work of artists who were
members of the Royal Academy, but they became accessible (via a strict jury
process) to all artists in 1791, upon orders of the Revolutionary
government. While the awarding of prizes
given at the Salon remained in the hands of a committee of judges who were
members of the Academy, over time, the Art Critic became an increasingly
important arbiter of taste; influencing public opinion and helping or harming an
artist’s reputation and commercial success.
This week, we would like you to consider the role of art criticism: how it impacted art creation in the 18th
century and how it fuels artists today. Take
into consideration the following questions as you respond to this prompt, comparing
the art criticism of the Age of Enlightenment to now:
- How do you think art criticism (professional or not) has influenced artist overall in the past and today?
- How does social media affect artists?
- How might criticism on an artist’s work benefit or harm an artist’s morale and his/her ability to produce work?
These are all very interesting questions to ponder in my opinion. I believe art criticism in the past allowed art to begin to move past the private academies (such as the Royal Academy) and into more public discussion of what it should be. The article on Diderot mentions that he favored Materialism and Idealism. Idealism was definitely emphasized in the Royal Academy, as its members strived to produce the highest quality works possible, but there was not as much emphasis placed on Materialism (when a work of art produces pleasurable sensations on its viewer). So, the establishment of art criticism, in my view, ‘opened up’ the art world and allowed artists more avenues of expression than had been previously advocated for by the Academy. As a result, artists currently have many different ways in which their art can be displayed (through multiple types of media) and interpreted by viewers. This can lead to some really obscure artworks. When I went to the Phoenix Art Museum with two other students and Drs. Hall and Cleworth on Wednesday, at one point, we saw a “work” that was literally just colored wire hanging on the wall. How is that “art”? I feel that in today’s art world, there is so much out there that critics have a heightened responsibility to determine which works get placed on view. I read an article from The Guardian very recently that stated, “The sheer volume and range of art that we're fed in a culture of galleries is so vast and confusing that a critic can get stuck in and make a difference. It really is time to stand up for what is good versus what is meretricious...this is a great time to be a critic - to try and show people what really matters” (“What is the point of art criticism?”, 2009). Therefore, I feel that the influence of art criticism on artists has been profound in both the past and today.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar way, the advent of social media greatly affects artists in ways never seen before. For one thing, millions of people can now access the Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. pages of artists (assuming they have those pages) and interact with them with the click of a button. In this way, being an artist is no longer as “private” of an affair as it used to be, which could make things uncomfortable. In addition, artists on social media face a new sense of ‘competition’ in concerning themselves with how many “likes”/reacts/comments they receive. And especially in 2019, artists could become subject to hurtful comments or even death threats if the art they make offends other people for whatever reason. Thus, social media has a pretty negative impact on artists overall. There are plus sides to the viewer’s ability to provide instantaneous positive feedback, but ultimately more room for the kinds of things people would not typically say in person.
Regarding the third question, I kind of think this completely depends on the artist. Generally, however, I would say that constructive criticism could get the artist thinking in different ways and thus feel more encouraged to experiment with different types of media/subject matter. Of course, the key word here is constructive. In the cases of artists getting “roasted” or even bombarded with threats on social media, that could absolutely destroy their morale and perhaps reputation, and in turn, make them less willing to share what they have created the next time. Again, these are very general outcomes, but I feel that they could represent the ‘spectrum’ of how some artists react to criticism on their work.
Lizzy, I agreed with all of the points you made and I explain many of my own opinions on what you discussed in my own blog post. I like that you focused on
Delete"Idealism vs. Materialism". I chose to explain my thoughts on the royal academy in "layman's terms" whereas I tried to rationalize King Louis the XIV's ideas by relating in to myself. I did this because it was my own way of understanding why the standardization of art became so popular. I believe that what makes art enjoyable is its uniqueness, so it was difficult for me to envision a society in which standardized art was viewed as "good" art.
To expand on your idea of "Idealism vs. Materialism" in a way that relates to my own blog post, I believe that Idealism made the most sense in the 18th century. The majority of the world was still under rule by some sort of monarchical or hierarchical premise, and many monarchs depended on the illusion of power in order to keep control of their kingdoms. What better way to create the illusion of power than to control what all art looks around you? This is something that has been observed throughout history as far back as the 18th century and as current as both Hitler's regime and Kim Jong-un's dictatorship over North Korea.
Lizzy, I like your inclusion of The Guardian's post, that is very interesting, and a thought provoking comment. I am curious to see what you think matters in art, following your confusion of the colored wires at the Art Museum. I did not see that piece when I was there, and I myself find some confusion when looking at abstract pieces such as that. Through visiting the museum multiple times I have developed a respect for those pieces all the same, even if I may not understand them. In fact, one of my growing favorite pieces is a canvas with smeared green paint that has in black font, "High Speed Gardening". When I first saw it I was confused as to why it was in the museum, but the more times I look at it the more I love it. Do you think that in order to develop a solid art art criticism it needs to be done from a first impression, or multiple visits?
DeleteJosh: I could not agree more with your notion that Idealism ultimately made the most sense during the 18th century, though I had not originally thought of it in terms of the political climate during the time. So, thank you for bringing along that perspective! Also, it is fascinating to me to consider that Nazi Germany and present-day North Korea had been/is grappling with a very similar if not the same 'control' of art. When politics seeps into art, it can certainly limit the freedoms of the artist.
DeleteBryson: Thank you! To answer your first question as to what matters to me in art, I completely side with the Poussiniste view that it needs to tell a story. This is why I love historical narratives. However, I also enjoy still lifes, because I like to analyze what significance/theme the objects have and why the artist chose to depict them. So, I feel that while the aesthetic qualities of art cannot be discounted, it should also have a deeper meaning and/or symbolism. To your mention of High Speed Gardening, I believe I have seen that work in the museum before and was also confused by it initially. Abstract works of art generally require much more of the viewer's attention and viewing to truly understand what is going on. And to that end, I believe that to truly develop a solid art criticism, it needs to be done from multiple visits, for the reason that you are likely not going to be able to 'unpack' everything about the art in just one viewing. That may not be necessary for some works, but it makes for a better critique in my opinion.
Lizzy, great response! Thank you for using personal experience to expand on the idea of "what is art?" Questions such as these are what Diderot tried to answer. I agree that social media can have a negative impact on artists, but do you think social media is necessary for an artist to gain a following and exposure for their work? Again, great post Lizzy!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Aryanna, for your compliment and for devising such an interesting post along with Kyle! That is a very good question. In this day and age, I would say yes, because with the sheer amount of people who use Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. it could seem almost bizarre if an artist did not use such platforms to gain a following/exposure. However, social media is also something that has only really existed within (almost) the past two decades. For a much longer time, artists have had to present their work in person, and as I have stated in my original post, people are typically nicer in person than online (due to the anonymity of the Internet). So it is really interesting to try to imagine what an artist's experience was like pre-social media, but again, in this present day, I would say that social media is necessary.
DeleteThank you, Lizzy! I apologize for not replying back on your response, human error. thank you for considering my question, I enjoyed your point of view. You have given me more to think about! I agree, people tend to be a lot nicer in person, in contrast to online.
DeleteAryana and Kyle, thank you both for this weeks blog prompt.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who does art in their free time I feel as if I have I unique perspective on art criticism.
As you two had put in your prompt, the creation of the first Salon in the 1800's drastically impacted how art was viewed and criticized. King Louis the XIV largely pioneered the standardization of art through his Royal Academy which forced many artists to adapt to centralized themes and styles. Although he was the king of France, this approach that his Royal Academy had adopted to teaching art set the standards for how "good" art should look throughout Europe as well. Because of this, many artists during this time were expected to create on the basis of classical training and a set of established rules only, which caused much of the art that came out of the Royal Academy to look very similar stylistically.
I would like to give King Louis the XIV the "benefit of the doubt" because I believe I understand what his thinking was when he created the Royal Academy. We all have preferences, and I can say that if I were a king I would probably only want to be surrounded with styles of art that I enjoy as well. However, on a bigger level I think that the creation of the Royal Academy did too much for stifling the creativity of artists. I think that more than anything artists began to think that the art that came from the Royal Academy was "good", not because of how it looked, but where it came from. The Royal Academy was an extremely prestigious educational institution that became "the place to go" for artists who wanted to become famous, even if such meant having to conform to the standards of the King in order to be viewed as such.
In terms of today's society, I believe that criticism on social media does more harm that good to developing artists. Social media, in a way, works just like the Royal Academy once did. Artists post their works all over the internet, and are then left to be openly criticized by whoever comes across it. This can be a good thing, because sometimes aspiring artists who doubt their creative ability can grow off of positive criticism. However, I feel as if the comment sections of the internet are typically more negative than they are positive, especially as they get bigger. Being someone who has posted their art to the internet before, I think that it is extremely important for artists who use social media to have a "thick skin". I have seen several small artists who become intimidated by what they read in the comments on their art, and give up art all together because they begin to doubt themselves.
Josh, I think it's interesting your point about King Louis the XIV, I didn't entirely think about it that way. It makes his decisions a little bit more understanding, but as an artist I know I would still be a little peeved if my style didn't match his preference.
DeleteI also think it's curious as to why you think the comment sections get more negative as an artist becomes more popular, why do you think that is? For some of the artists that I follow I haven't found that occurrence very often. Do you think it may be variant on some artists, or do some people choose to talk about the negativity more than others?
I totally spaced out on how art critiquing on social media could also potentially work similar to the Royal Art Academy! Artist who do put their work on social media are left open to people to say what they want and sometimes it's not always the best feedback that they gain. Internet comments can absolutely be more negative because of how anonymous one can be on the internet. People can hide behind online personas and become complete monsters on the internet.
DeleteJosh, I really enjoyed your post and think it is well thought out. I also appreciate your point of view as someone who curates their own art as this subject has likely had direct affects on you personally. The comparison that you made to social media and the Salons is interesting as I did not think about it in those terms before. Posting your art online could very well be compared as a similarly larger scale Salon in terms of the criticism and attention it would receive. Again, thank you and great post Josh!
DeleteI think that art criticism was a great way to pioneer a different level of understanding and appreciation for art in the past. Instead of having to depend on your own understandings for the art in front of you, there was a voice that explained each piece and identified its faults and strengths. It granted the viewer an “educated” voice about art, giving them something to think about and decided if they wanted to go along with the ride or maintain their own thought process. In this way as well, it freed the artist to do more of what they wanted, but it limited the viewer’s perspective (if they chose to listen). I think art criticism can also be a negative thing because it still narrows down the preference of art, just as The Academy had narrowed down the type of art produced. Instead of each person depending on their own heart to appreciate different art, they can be easily conditioned to like only certain pieces. This leads to a similar issue of today’s viewing of art. Senior year in high school I had take AP Art, where we had to create a portfolio of 12 pieces based on one main topic. One of my fellow peers based her concentration on a line from Shakespeare “these violent delights have violent ends”. It was a beautiful concentration that highlighted her vast understanding of using different media as well as her artistic talent in general, but her art wasn’t taken well. Our art teacher and some staff members didn’t like how she was displaying images such as drunk driving and the seven deadly sins, even if her intention was true and her art was incredible. I’m using this as an example of how art criticism is rough for the artist because my peer’s art was easily the best out of all the other AP students, but it wasn’t appreciated to it’s fullest. The criticism she faced from peers and teachers told her to soften her work, do not show the grotesque, even if it is the truth. Although art has a wider range of acceptance in today’s world, there is still resistance and attempted conditioning to go a certain route.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is a crucial thing for artists today. When going to art shows such as first Friday, I am constantly aware at the fact that many artists push to tell us that they have a social media over anything else. If I like a person’s art but I don’t have the money on me now, I grab a business card that has some sort of social media link on it. It is a significant thing for an artist to be able to be heard over the masses, and sometimes it feels as if social media platforms are working against that. Many websites have moved from the simple chronological order of content to which posts have the most attention on them, and those are the ones that are shown. If a person does not interact to some level on an artist’s post, their account will drown even if they have thousands of followers. This harms the artist’s exposure, income, and most of all their confidence. If they are getting half the attention (like, share, reblog, retweet, comment, so on) that they used to, their first thought is that their content isn’t good enough anymore. When that occurs, on top of multiple art criticisms on their pieces, their intentions take a huge step backwards.
I personally have a terrible time taking criticism as an artist, but I think that it is valuable when it comes from the right person. There are always going to be people who think that a certain style is weird looking, or they don’t like the content but there will also be those fellow artists that will cheer each other on to keep trying. Even just recently after posting a drawing I finished, I didn’t receive as much good feedback as I wanted to, but just after getting one person to say, “you’ve been working on your art and it shows”, it motivated me to keep going. Art criticism has its push and pulls just as it did during the 18th century, but it is a crucial part in the art community, no matter the impact.
Bryson, you said how art criticism has brought about a way for us as viewers to better understand art. I am not an artist and do sometimes have trouble appreciating art beyond simple beauty. In class when a piece is shown, many times I think it’s beautiful but don’t exactly know why. As the piece is analyzed and explained about the different techniques used, iconography, etc. I see a whole new layer to the piece. Without art criticism I do not know that we would have the pleasure of appreciating an art work beyond the surface level. I am grateful that the critics did analyze works so that we could know just how amazing the works are.
DeleteBryson, great post! I'm sorry to hear your high school peer experienced such harsh criticism. I agree, art criticisms can hinder the different styles to flourish. As an artist, I can relate to taking criticism too personally, but over the years I've learned the difference between constructive criticism and when someone is being just rude.
DeleteIn order to get better, we need criticism. Art criticism has been influencing artists overall in the present and past by giving artists feedback and helpful tips to elaborate on. Not only can it help artists improve but more importantly, art criticism is the foundation for how the audiences look at art and how they should understand it. They help us see art from a more objective position. I believe that without art critics, some of the art that is valued today wouldn’t have as much value, people would just look over it. Social media can be an artists best weapon or worst enemy. The plus side with social media is that they can build a bigger audience, they don’t have to rely on their audience around them, the internet can bring extra eyes to their work. Another good thing that comes with sharing artwork on social media is that artists can also build their shop online! If people want to buy art or commission something from the artist, they can utilize the shop. Some of the downsides that come with social media is art thieves and impersonators. These two groups can harm the original artist. Impersonators can damage an artists name by rudely interacting with people or using their face to do their bidding. Although there are copyright laws and such to protect the ideas and works of the artists, that doesn’t stop people from tracing and reproducing similar images or people just outright saying that they’re the original artist. Just as much as criticism can benefit the artist, it also comes with downsides. Mainly for those who have a very unique way of producing art and executing their ideas, some criticism might put the artist down because they saw the image their way.
ReplyDeleteYasmine, you made some great points in your response! I agree, criticism is a great way to push the artist into furthering their idea. critics helping us to see art more objectively is something I had never considered, thank you for allowing me to consider a different point of view.
DeleteYasmine I didn't even begin to think about copyright laws. The amount of stolen art I see on Twitter a day is shocking. Artists are constantly begging for people to not repost, and some even deny the use of their art as icons/headers even with a credit to the author. I'm not an artist, but I do write and post my pieces publically, and I'd be really upset if someone reposted my writing and claimed it was theirs. I spend hours researching topics and writing my fiction pieces, and people can copy and paste and claim it is theirs in a second.
DeleteYasmine, I definitely agree with your argument that if anyone hopes to get better at anything, they need criticism. I suppose I get hung up on this topic because now-a-days through social media, a lot of people don't know how to properly criticize. I feel as if the word "criticize" has a very strong negative connotation, and I believe that this is because so many people think that to "criticize" something is to point out its flaws. In my opinion, we should use criticism as a way to help each other improve, and it is hard to do that when all we hear are negatives. I wish that social media apps could hold people more accountable in a way that lessens anonymity, that way people would be less likely to be so negative in the comments.
DeleteArt criticism has definitely made an impact on art. Past artists struggled having their own style of art because it was seen as incorrect by critiques, yet, even knowing this, artists always ended up doing whatever they desired. It still happens today. Getting critiqued is sometimes a good thing for artists so they know how to make their art appear more easy going, proportionate, etc. but it is subjective to whoever is critiquing the art piece. An example would be how the Royal Academy viewed art. They wanted art to be more like Poussin’s but even others said Ruben’s style was superior. The impact the Royal Academy had on art was huge. Patrons were led to believe any art made by a student at the academy was the definition of perfect art. With this mindset, artists who couldn’t go to the academy were not seen as real artists and their work was not valued as much.
ReplyDeleteSocial media today has a huge impact on artists. Being able to post art on social media platforms allows for artists to show audiences what they are capable of doing. This could lead to commissions and jobs in animation.
An artist can post their art anywhere and almost immediately they will get some feedback. Some comments are praising the art and the artists but others point out what they think are flaws. The artist can then take comments into consideration when doing a new piece. In this way, it can be helpful but some artists find this to be rude. If an artist doesn’t ask for criticism, then they shouldn’t receive it as it can hurt the artist’s morale.
Damaris, I like what you said about the social media aspects of art criticism. One was acquiring a job through social media because of art displayed digitally. During the Age of the Enlightenment, jobs over cell phones would not have been possible. Also, you said how artists can post their work anytime to get almost instant feedback. No waiting for the next art critic to come through. In the modern age, there are many new conveniences that did not exist during the Age of Enlightenment. Art and everything around it has evolved a lot since the Age of Englightenment!
DeleteDamaris, great job connecting your points back to the Royal Academy! I agree, critics give the artist an opportunity to strengthen their art in a more technical fashion, but as you stated how art is perceived is still subjective.
DeleteI basically agree with every you have stated, you wrote down exactly what can to my mind when I read this weeks blog topic. Somethings you brought to my attention were the fact that criticism even if it is helpful can hurt the artists moral.
DeleteWhat you stated about art critics criticism helping artist to make their art more appealing is actually such a good point. As much as artists of today want to say that they are creating art solely to express themselves, there is also the unspoken urge to wanting to sell their work and make a living off of it. Art critics might say things we don't want to hear, but the matter of the fact is, how they see things is how the public will most likely see things, and if our goals as artist is to sell our work, besides expressing one's self, then we must be at least open to taking in what they have to say.
DeleteEven though art criticism has definitely played a huge roll on the types of art work produced, I do not think it stopped artists from doing their own type of style. After all, there are those "rebels" who think outside of the box of what should be considered art. Moreover, I believe Instagram is a great form of social media for artists to bloom. It is a way for artists to advertise their work, and even inspire other artists. I know I have looked at hundreds of posts of amazing artwork on Instagram. Over all, criticism is a great way to know where specifically one might need improvement. However, it is all just speculation and opinion. For instance, I might think a piece of art is absolutely beautiful while someone else might think it is way too cluttered. At the end of the day, it is the artist's decision to accept or ignore criticism.
ReplyDeleteNohely, you made some really good points! I enjoy your positive perspective on art criticism and social media. I agree, art criticism can be a driving force that pushes artist to create pieces never seen. Damaris made a great point that art is subjective. Which I believe brings us into the questions of "what is art?", " What is good art?"
DeleteIn the past, I feel that art criticism helped to shape the different movements that came about. During the Age of Enlightenment, when artists would display their work at a Salon, the critics had to have been drawn to pieces with certain characteristics. Artists might have taken note of what the critics admired and tried to apply whatever that was to their future works. Today, it can go the same way. Art is not displayed in Salons anymore, but as artists see what critics and patrons admire, they better know what to create. I think art criticism has influenced many artists to create what critics and patrons will admire, rather than what the artist themselves enjoys creating.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is a wonderful way for artists to connect with one another and patrons. Patrons do not even have to leave their homes to view the artist’s work as they can often see digital versions right on their devices. It is a convenience that the Age of Enlightenment did not have, but it does have its downfalls. While one can display their art digitally, that also opens up avenues for anyone to be able to criticize their art. Whether or not they appreciate art, they can say what they want. Social media can also connect other artists to each other similar to the way the Salons did during the Enlightenment. Other artists are able to view other’s works and what is popular. This is another way that artists individuality can be affected if they feel they have to create what everyone else is.
I think that are positives and negatives to how art criticism influences an artist. Having someone analyze an artist’s work and tell them what they’ve done right and wrong could discourage individuality in future works. The critic may dislike a particular technique the artist used, but to the artist it’s a technique they love to work with and have perfected over time. The artist will have to change the way he/she creates to please the critic. However, the art critic may only admire a certain type of art, so that doesn’t necessarily mean what was originally created is not magnificent. This does not allow for much creativity regarding techniques or flexibility in subject matter. On the other hand, a critic may point out something about the work that the artist did not realize. Maybe the work lacks unity or color. If this is true, the artist can take this criticism and apply it to future works to hopefully receive better comments.
Ashlynne, great post! I had never considered the convenience factor our generation created. I can agree that art criticism can benefit and/or harm an artist, but I argue that these critics push the artist's creativity to create something they had not thought of without these critics.
DeleteI agree completely on your assessment on the convenience of our era. It's hard to have an open and accessible form of sharing when anybody can comment on your work with harsh criticisms or misguided observations. It's hard for people to stay in the realm of respectful and constructive when behind a screen. The anonymity really plays a role in what people are comfortable typing rather than what they would say in person. Great insight Ashlynne!
DeleteI'm always in favor of constructive criticism in any art form; artists and writers need room to grow, and getting critics from others can help develop their skills. Art criticing, especially from professionals who have mastered the class, can be very beneficial. That is, unless the artist has a fixed mindset and can't take critiscm well. Then no one really wins, right? If the artist doesn't believe they can grow and develop their craft, then art criticing is lost on them. They're stuck in a bubble of "I can't do this, I can't get better, everyone hates my work" and that is not the healthy mindset to have.
ReplyDeleteArt criticing starts taking a turn when capitalism comes into play. If you remember weeks ago when we talked about art galleries and millions being spent on paintings, you'll know that certain art is only looked for. Art critics may gloss over certain pieces and focus on what's hot, leaving artists dejected. They could give up, or try to follow the path everyone is taking instead of going with their own style. If you saw someones paiting get sold and yours is hanging up on the wall, you wouldn't feel very good. This happened in the past with salons and Louis XIV's Royal Academy, and it happens today on social media. Artists are constantly lowering their commission rate in hopes someone buys their services.
When I was at the Phoenix Art Museum I couldn't help but notice all the Caravaggio-esque paintings I saw there. He had a cult following; everyone did tenebrism like him. Artists adapted styles to what was popular, and it still happens today. Look at tumblr artists and their pattern of designing their characters to fit a "Steven Universe" like style. Not saying this is a bad thing, but it is interesting how artists always seem inspired by another.
You made great points, Hannah! I also noticed the numerous paintings with the influence of Caravaggio's tenebrism. I agree that people probably follow/are influenced by art styles that are popular at the time, but I also think a lot of it has to do with learning and practicing. It's understandable for artists to see someone else's work, admire it, and want to recreate something to its likeness using similar techniques.
DeleteI also agree with your point that criticism could, but not always, be beneficial. In my post, I focused on the way critics could contribute to the improvement of art, but I didn't think about how the artist could also contribute or deny their own improvement. I now see how important it is for both sides of the critiques to have positive mindsets.
Hannah, I really liked reading your post and thought it was extremely interesting how you tied art criticism to the modern-day. I enjoyed when you mentioned the introduction of a capitalist society and its affects on art criticism as a whole. It is interesting how a style can go back and forth in society, dictating who strikes gold and becomes rich off of the art they have produced. I have really enjoyed your post, thank you again Hannah!
DeleteAlso, this may be a dumb question, sorry I do not know much about this subject, but what would be considered a "Steven Universe" art style? (If you don't mind elaborating a little)
It's not a dumb question Kyle! Sorry if I was vague.
Delete"Steven Universe" is a cartoon on Cartoon Network and the style is basically basic shapes to make characters, lack of detail, minimal shading, pastel colors, etc. This isn't just Steven Universe but a lot of cartoons have the characters have 4 fingers and that's popular too.
From my basic understanding of professional criticism, I think it further controlled the art world similar to the way Louis XIV did with the Academy. By that I mean, I think artists were practically forced to produce art that appealed to the preferences and stylistic desires of the Art Critics. I'm sure that if an artist's work didn't follow Diderot's art theory of Materialism and Idealism, or live up to his aesthetic point of view, that artist would get bad reviews and the public would no longer pay any attention or money to them. Diderot was a very influential man with great power over the success of artists. From my understanding, the newsletters he produced for the European elite society were practically examples showing them what makes "good art and bad art". I think this form of published critiquing could be detrimental to artists due to the simple fact that everyone likes different things. When people like Diderot have so much influence they can easily alter the tides of society, pushing and pulling them to think the way he does.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, criticism could be a wonderful learning experience if done correctly. When I think of an art critic, I think of someone that remorselessly judges with no desire to actually help and guide the artist. I think that in a lot of situations negative criticism should be a personal affair instead of being published for the world to see.
From my experience, online communities within social media are amazing at uplifting artists. People are able to find inspirations, references, tips, and support from artists of all skill levels.
To add to what you stated about artist being forced to create in a certain way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of artist in training were not looking to express themselves and make their own version of art the way our society does now. I would even go as far to say that their creativity probably does not compare to the creative minds of today, because they did not exercise it as much as we do. However all this being said, I don't think it was a problem for aspiring artist, I just think its sad that they never got to experience expression the way we get to.
DeleteErica, I appreciate the detail that you went into when discussing Diderot concerning his idealized criticism over art as one of the first masters of his art. I also enjoyed what you said about the art critic in general, how people view a critic as someone that judges negatively and the worst out of everything; I think a lot of people find this stereotype true most times for some reason. I agree when you mention criticism should be a personal affair instead of a public manor for everyone to see the results, this would alleviate some of the judging feeling and hopefully add a sense of personality that could actually constructively help an artist. I really liked your post and the thought that was put into it, thank you again Erica!
DeleteIn the past I feel as though art criticism played a more pivotal role then it does in todays culture. People back then did not question society norms or intentionally go out of their way to be bold and different. Following the authority was more popular, not to mention there wasn't as much cultural differences/acceptance in those groups of people. Now, we have a variety of races and religions all over the world, already putting us in a place where rebelling against art rules isn't so crazy. The words of a critic, or of anyone in general can be beneficial because hearing different perspectives and incorporating suggestion will only make one stronger and wiser.
ReplyDeleteToday we are exposed so much content because of social media, our taste all the way to techniques, are being altered and changed because of this platform. In a lot of cases, now successful artists on instagram don't even go to school and are self taught, which would of been astonishing to the people back then. Even what we call art would most likely appear as bizarre to people of the past because of how expressive and abstract it is.
It is important to accept criticism and reflect, but with that it is also important to not taking anything too personal. Even if someone were to absolutely trash your work in an review, it is important to stay humble and to find anything remotely helpful within their words. Being supportive of your work is fine, but getting defensive and frustrated with a person with an opposing view is unnecessary because getting worked up over words someone said is not worth you efforts, and emotions.
Jacey, I really liked how compared the past to now and went into detail about specific instances and differences between art criticism in different time periods. The way we look at criticism and art altogether in the past may look a little bizarre, but people of the past would think the exact same thing about the art and culture surrounding it today. Art style and culture has drastically changed so much due to do much diversity within people and societies. I also appreciate what you said regarding how criticism should be received; it is important to stay humble and take notes on what could be improved instead of using that energy negatively and getting frustrated with the critic. Overall, I really enjoyed reading and thinking about you post. Thank you again Jacey!
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly with your assessment Jayce. In this day and age, we are bombarded by incessant and perpetual criticism of all forms. I like that you brought up self-teaching as a reference for modern day. Back then I'm sure there were artists who were self taught, but it is much more apparent now with tools like Instagram. I myself am a mostly self taught artist and school has really only enhanced what I learned on my own. Great post!
DeleteI believe art critics were more useful in the past. The critics were trying to benefit the artists more than the population. I believe that today there are many art critics (professional or not) that are mereging artists to create similar art because that is what the commuity or population likes and is what they are used to. However, I also believe that social media is artists main critic. Any type of platform on social media is difficult to maintain a steady flow of good critism. I especially believe this is true for art, an artist opens up when creating their work and it can be a very sensitive piece and when sharing that work with others so publicly it can be intimidating when not all the feedback is positive and/or helpful. There are also pros to social media critics. If the artist has gotten the attention of someone it is extremly likely that the person will share their work and pass it on to their friends. There are many self-taught artists that become very well known because of this, socail media is the fastest way to share just about anything.
ReplyDelete-NOEMI RAMIREZ
Noemi, you made some great points in your response! I agree being vulnerable about a piece and not receiving the response you hoped for is hard. I argue that harsh critics come with the territory of being an artist. I believe to be an artist is to accept the fact that not everyone will enjoy the pieces that are created.
DeleteI think that we are in a time of a very saturated period of art. The internet has given everybody and anybody access to various forms of art through a screen and I think art criticism today is as convoluted as back then. In the past, art criticism was mostly based on the salons or higher society. That means that the taste followed the path that those with power determined. This is the case with Louis the IV with the Royal Academy, since their style was very deliberate and specific. IN the 18th century, artists like Jacques-Louis David created art that commanded the style that the Royal Academy looked for. This I think influenced artists to paint in the style of the Royal Academy so they could achieve the prestige they desired.
ReplyDeleteIn our current time, we live in a visually propagated society. We are always looking at some form of art or another and it is extremely diverse in selection. Artists are influenced by what pays or they are influenced by the audience they cater to. This is where social media really helps but hurts the artists inspiration. I think that social media overwhelms artists with the sheer amount that they can find and try to recreate, but on the other hand, it really influences artists to try many different styles.
I think criticism can seriously affect the morale of artists depending on the type of criticism. Again to reference David, he nearly killed himself because he couldn't win the competition with the Royal Academy. If the criticism isn't constructive then it leads to the artist losing hope. I think that criticism, when given constructively allows the artist to improve on their technique and style and without it, there is no room for artists to move forward.
Ethan, great post! I agree that Salons and the elite really pushed their preferred style. I really enjoyed your point about social media overwhelming an artist, because I believe that to be true as well.
Delete