This approach assumes that the public isn't going to change their opinions, and that the critic isn't going to have any role in this. A good music critic, wine critic, film critic, etc., can help a member of the public (e.g., me) learn more about an art form (or an aesthetic experience) and develop his or her taste in that form.

That is often done best by going against what my initially be the plebian tastes of the public, recommending books or music or food or wine that will challenge the reader to stretch his or her experience and thus expand and refine his or her taste.

W. H. Auden puts this very nicely in his explanation of the role of a critic.

Best regards,
Carl

If a critic can teach the audience or make a lasting contribution then they have done their job. But it seems to me that they have an entirely different job than a person giving a teaching critique.

Certainly there are good critics out there for any area of art... be it wine, or food, or car styling.

Joanie

Pity most bonsai critics are just that. Unqualified and just plain being critical. A good portion of them wouldn't know a bonsai if it was smacking them in the rear. Good or bad.
Critics should be knowledgeable in the subject. Basically have read more than one book. Be able to state not only what is wrong but why it is wrong. And yes how to fix the problem. Very few bonsai critics can do that.
Heavens forbid they should have to be qualified.

You know Ron, I was just thinking along the same lines... although in a more general sense.

It seems to me that the critics who seek to influence public taste have a different set of skills than those who seek to teach the artist.

A critic who seeks to influence public taste first must be accepted by enough people so that they have a venue for getting their message out... they must be hired or paid or published or something. They also must have a firm grounding in the cutting edge of the general taste if their critiques are to have a following. In other words, it seems to me that most critics can spot trends and guide people toward them, but other factors for the trends must be in place. You cannot tell people about a wonderful new wine if the vintner has not yet produced it, nor can you wax lyrical on the joys of an herb if no cook is using it, or if most people don't care at all for the taste of it. They are barometers, as I expressed before, and with their special insights they show the way. If you think about it, they don't even have to know the mechanical or physical aspects of how to change what they like or dislike about something... only enough about what the problem is and why it is wrong.

In contrast, the teaching critic must have a good working knowledge of how to fix the problems, and the insight and vision to help the artist see the problem for what it is. Maybe this should have an entirely different name, maybe the teaching part should be emphasized. We aren't as interested, in bonsai, in the type of critique that seeks to influence the public or consumer... we are interested in learning from the critique and applying it in a functional, physical way to our trees. It is not enough to say that a branch is in the wrong place, you must also know how, and whether, it can be moved or improved.

Joanie

A lot of critical writings are done in aftermarket periodicals such as newspapers or critical reviews printed expressly for review by the associated peers. If I were wanting to review such criticism I would seek out those reviews. I could also pass them by.

Somehow we all assume we have some "right" to pass on the critique here whenever its decided by the critic. Somehow we think our personal feelings about someone elses work is OK as long as we point out the flaws in an educational manner. Sometimes I just want to go to a specific part of the forum and look a pretty trees without someone elses point of view.

Just because you can identify a problem, is it always necessary to point it out? Sometimes I feel that some just look for the negatives while never finding the inherant beauty in something not so perfect.

Al

I think that this style of critiqueing trees based on whether or not the rules are followed is so passe and out of control (in addition to being completely uncreative) that the poster of a tree should specifically ban it when a finished tree is put up for critique. One can talk about taper and apex and nebari and triangles when we are talking about bonsai material and its potential.

However, when the tree is ready and put up for peer review, those technical terms have no place in a discussion. If I was a moderator in those threads, I would have a list of terms to be outright forbidden in the ensuing discussion. As well as any reference to any rule. This requirement would weed out 75% of the out of place and useless remarks from posters.

Al, I truly feel that a critique should only be given if requested. And the receiver has to weigh the critique and judge for themselves whether it has merit.

Please let's not descend quickly into a discussion of happenstances or personalities on this forum in particular. If we can keep it in the abstract, perhaps the dead horses will not be needed.

And perhaps we can discuss things with an eye to learning from each other.

(keeping fingers crossed, sending good vibes, rubbing Buddha's belly)

Joanie

I learned something a long time ago from a very special bonsai teacher of mine.
When critiquing something always talk about what is right about the item. Never what is wrong. When you have finished pointing out what is right the student will know what is wrong. They will think that they figured it out all by themselves. No resistance that way. A positive win - win situation.
Also Al is 100% right. Not everything in this world needs to be analyzed.
Sometimes the greatest beauty in a bonsai is the joy the person showing it gets. Appreciate their labors. Acknowledge their accomplishments.
Standards are good but those standards must fit the situation.
Beauty comes in all kinds of packages. Don't be stuck with just the square box ;o)

To identify who is the propper critic, as on public forums like this, one has to identify the type of critisizm a poster is asking for. If someone posts a tree/stick/bonsai on the forum they may be looking for "public opinion" from the members of the forum. If this be the case, the proper critic would be anyone with an opinion. If a person specificly posts in the ATM forum, it is very obvious they are asking for a "profesional" opinion. If the posts says "any and/or all comments welcome" gives me the impression that public opinion is asked for, thus all critiques are valid. On the event a poster asks for "What can I do to improve this" is asking for a higher level of experience, therefore only the critiques from those with the knowledge to give such advice should accepted.

Wow, that would be nice, huh?

A place where I can post my bonsai and not have it critiqued, where only good things can be said about it and never a negative word would be heard..

It sounds wonderful but I must of missed the part where or what anyone would learn from it.

Maybe we should also have the exact opposite and have a place where only negative comments are allowed. Or better yet.....a place where both are allowed, oh wait, we already have that.

When I just want to look at a bonsai without the comments, I don't read them.

Just thinking out loud, no harm intended...



Will