Usally in my day to day life I find my self pondering such things as art and the threads here.While we were having the big 3 point discussion I found this in my paper.Figured I would share for no real reason,just to see what comes of it I guess.






Critics not so bad after all
Rose-Colored Glasses






My Communication Criticism teacher assigned our class to write a paper on the subject "What is a critic?"

At this, I thought, hmmm.I can tell you what a critic is in two words:arrogant butthead.

I, like millions of other Americans, read movie reviews before seeing the new Kate Hudson flick, book reviews before buying Tom Wolfe's latest and CD reviews before popping in Kanye West's sophomore album.

But although I heed the advice of Ebert and Roeper, I hypocritically turn my nose up at their profession.

(Hypocritically--do you think that's a coincidence the root word "critic" is hidden in there?)

To be paid to critique a work of art and analyze it to death until all of the passion and mystery is gone is a sad, sad job, in my opinion.

But I also realize that the work of a critic is inescap-able.

For example, right now, I am criticizing the title "critic." You just can't get away from criticism!

I have my close-minded views against those who make a living by finding things wrong with every-thing in the world, but I suppose that there is an upside to criticism and that is the knowledge that comes with reading the review.

Expert analyst Edwin Black said that, "The critic is an educator, and insofar as he fails to educate, he fails his essential office," meaning that if a critic fails to inform and make an impact on his audience, he does not do his job.

A critic lets us know more about a particular work of art; he lets us into his world and allows us to see things we might have missed on our own.

Some critics even find praise in movies, books, etc. and can appreciate the time directors, writers, etc put into their babies.

"It was a masterpiece-- the best CD ever created." Who wouldn't love to pop that into their stereo?

Criticism is all around us and i myself could even claim to be a critic. After all, I am being paid to edit stories at the university newspaper. Am I not critiquing them by doing so?

Just the other day I gave my opinion about the movie "40-Year-Old Virgin." I said it was unbelievably hilarious (it so was) and based on my "review" of the movie, my friends paid the $6.50 to see the matinee.

So to answer the question, "What is a critic?" is to say that a critic is everyone.
You don't have to go to school to learn what is and is not art, you don't have to think you are smarter or holier than thou as some critics do (that's when they become arrogant buttheads), you just have to have your own opinion, beliefs and personality and give an honest opinion, preferably backing it up with examples and facts.

Criticism will always exist, positive or negative, but as long as critics teach us something and we gain insight from their words, maybe they aren't so bad.

But just maybe.







-MEGAN MCWETHY
Assistant lifestyles editor for the Arkansas Traveler
09/02/05

*re-printed with consent

__________________
http://gongshi.freeforums.org/index.php

I can't and don't agree with every word from the author here.However, this little article did get my brain working about Bonsai and some of the discussion here at the forum.I think the quotes listed below here are worth consideration and struck a chord with me and my views on the subject.





"Expert analyst Edwin Black said that, "The critic is an educator, and insofar as he fails to educate, he fails his essential office," meaning that if a critic fails to inform and make an impact on his audience, he does not do his job."

"Some critics even find praise in movies, books, etc. and can appreciate the time directors, writers, etc put into their babies."

"A critic lets us know more about a particular work of art; he lets us into his world and allows us to see things"

"Criticism will always exist, positive or negative, but as long as critics teach us something and we gain insight from their words, maybe they aren't so bad."

"The only person who ever complains about a critic is the one who recieves a bad review." - Alfred Hitchcock


Sounds a lot like our rep system



Will

Yes,just too bad that system has little-to-nothing to do with Bonsai or Art majority of the time.Nor have I ever gotten a bad review(rep) for anything that has to do with this Bonsai or Art concept,seems some just end up with criticism for the wrong subjects.Like your quote from the Master of suspence BTW.

I disagree that everyone is a Critic. Everyone can be critical, but that doesn't make you a Critic in the sense that your opinion is worth listening to. For instance, I found "The 40-year old Virgin" to be crude and distasteful, full of what makes our society dysfunctional. And like minded people would agree, but others would look askance at us. We would disagree profoundly with most movie critics, but then again, I find movie critics to be less insightful and more just barometers of the common taste.I would personally consider them to be Opinion writers rather than Critics.

When a Critic begins to do what they do best, you should be nodding your head and understanding what you could only tentatively "feel" before. You should gain insight into their way of looking at something. It should put the subject into context for you, either historically, intellectually, spatially, or in some other important manner. And a good critique should elevate the understanding of the subject in such a way that the person whose work is being critiqued understands at least the next step they need to take in the learning process, or gains insight into where their work could be stronger. The seeking and giving of a critique is part of the learning process, and is a respectable and respectful exchange when done well.

This is, of course, only my opinion and certainly others have different views.

Joanie

Very well put Joanie.


Will

Hey Joanie,

I think I can agree with you.


Somthing in Joanies post makes me wonder the value of a professional critic vs. public opinion though.We have all heard/seen where a critic will go against public opinions.Which is more important to please,the critic or the 200 other viewers?

Well, that's a tough one. We pay movie critics to tell us if most people will like the movie that they are wondering about... not whether it will have any lasting place in history. Art critics tend to put things into historical context, if they are decent at their job. Maybe we need to distinguish what the purpose of the critique is.... how about this.... the critique we can best use in bonsai is one that seeks to teach, because the bonsai is a progressive piece of art and can be changed at any time, whereas the critique given to the public on an already existing piece of art or literature or architecture seeks to place it in context, rather than to teach the maker or to help refine the particular subject of the critique.

Does that make any sense? I haven't had my morning tea yet.

Joanie

Great points Joanie.

The purpose of a critique is base on the subject of said critique. As in Joanie's post the lessons learned by someone critiquing a bonsai, is used to improve the piece of art being qritiqued. Where as the critsizm of a painting or sculptire could be used to learn perspective or a different way of looking at the art. Different lessons learned, but still educational.

Very well put! The lessons and objectives are different... perhaps we could think of them as "learning critiques" and "after-the-fact critiques".

As Red Pine queries, should we listen to the one, or the many? Maybe it depends upon your ultimate goal. If your goal is to sell movie tickets, or electronic equipment, you must listen to the many. They are the ones who will be laying down their money. If you are trying to make collectibles, as I do for a living, you need to blend the two. Listening to the many (because they buy the product) is crucial, but you must also try to achieve the best product each time. Even though the many will buy products that aren't perfect, you should still try to improve each time to enhance the product and to raise the standard. If you are an Art critic, you have a different goal entirely. Perhaps you sell books or write museum text... then you must satisfy your peers that you know what you are talking about. But you are not trying to teach the artists themselves, they won't come in and repaint the work because of your critique. Your audience and goals are different.

Joanie