A sensitive reader of art criticism -- "close to tears after reading yet another disrespectful, humiliating passage in this week’s paper" -- wants to know: "Why do you print such hurtful stuff?"
Ah, easy for the critic to highlight the clueless sensitivitoid.
The real attack on the critic would come not from those who think he's too mean, but from those who are even meaner. Let's see those letters too.
IN THE COMMENTS: We go off-topic to discuss the recent "fake Titus" controversy, and I'm moved to add the "funny in the comments" tag.
३१ ऑगस्ट, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
Criticism is:
- Intellectual analysis.
- Motivation (to better the artist's talent to create deeper art).
- Self-referential ("I observe").
- And most importantly, a power play.
Ack, forgot:
- Ego.
- Envy.
But also self-awareness that you may not have the talent to do what an artist does, but you can appreciate, encourage, and even advance an artist like a mentor (or taskmaster).
Why are art critics so mean to artists?
Because nobody wants to be on the bottom.
Bissage, that reminds me. Have you noticed we've lost Titus?
Critics are mean because they can be. And, they are usually right. Most art sucks. Oh, wait, was that too mean? Too freakin' bad - get a real job...
Ha! I'd hoped someone would go there.
And yes, I noticed he's not commented lately.
I expect he'll return soon enough as he did before.
Some of us need to take a break every now and then.
The artist can ban criticism. The artist can always inform a paper that they don't want a review. Unless you are famous, the reviewers will gladly not come.
Stop whining.
No, he's mad that I thought one of the nicknames was a fake Titus and says he's never coming back.
Or maybe that was fake Titus getting mad, and the real Titus will come back.
those who are even meaner
Some have at first for Wits, then Poets past,
Turn'd Criticks next, and prov'd plain Fools at last;
Pope
"The artist can ban criticism. The artist can always inform a paper that they don't want a review. Unless you are famous, the reviewers will gladly not come."
Some critics have a policy of not writing reviews of artists that are not famous and not good (i.e., most artists).
I've backed out of book reviews on the ground that I didn't respect the book and it wasn't published conspicuously (that is, the author wasn't famous and the publisher was small).
I think this is a good ethical stance.
Also, you might go easy on local arts productions because of the inherent limitations and the desire to help them survive. You still have to be honest, but you don't have to show off your taste at their expense.
OT, but Ann -
What in your blogger-bag-of-tricks lets you tell the real from the fake Titus? I thought I could see differences in word play, which suggests that one could use a computer program to analyze sentences much like handwriting analysis.
"Also, you might go easy on local arts productions because of the inherent limitations and the desire to help them survive. You still have to be honest, but you don't have to show off your taste at their expense."
To me that's unethical. Not to blow my own anonymous horn, but my work has been reviewed in papers all around the country and the the NYC press including the Times. I couldn't care less what any of them have to say. My agent and the money people do, but I couldn't care less.
That said, I don't think it's any reviewer's place to "decide" to "help" or even "destroy" some artist, group or another.
Reviewer's are opinion reporters they should review things "of note". The minute they try to "help a small group" etc. they've crossed the line.
I also worked with someone once who slugged a reviewer in a public situation and at the time I thought it entirely appropriate.
So we put our work out there with the possibility an un-talented hack might not like it and they print things they might get slugged for.
It's all a rich tapestry!
"What in your blogger-bag-of-tricks lets you tell the real from the fake Titus? I thought I could see differences in word play, which suggests that one could use a computer program to analyze sentences much like handwriting analysis."
I thought the style of the nickname looked different -- it had a space in it and didn't have a pop culture reference -- and the usual humor and wackiness wasn't there in the writing.
And then when he fought my accusation without any whimsy, I felt sure he was fake. And he was posting a lot too, which made me want to delete. If you're going to take a thread O.T., you have to do it with style.
Real Titus had amazing style and I really loved him, which was why I was motivated to protect him from any impostor.
I think if the guy I thought was fake were actually the real one that he would have appreciated my protection of his identity. So his failure to see that was another reason why I thought he was fake.
No, he's mad that I thought one of the nicknames was a fake Titus and says he's never coming back.
I missed that completely.
If he left in a huff (or even a minute and a huff) and said he’s never coming back . . . well, he would be the first to change his mind later on.
We’ll see.
If you're going to take a thread O.T., you have to do it with style.
That is the nicest compliment Ann has ever given me. Thanks, Ann!
Thx Ann, me too (about Titus, not Mort).
And as long as you went OT, allow me to go OOT: I thought Merge Divide stuck with the argument far longer than previous visiting trolls, and even maintained some civility during the very long comment thread. Decidedly non-troll like. I am not trying here to support either side of this fight, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Althouse as Solomon proposed slicing the baby Titus in twain. Real Titus didn't speak up, so he was, by definition, the false Captain Kirk and THE CALL WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
Nevermind...
Critics are mean because they are jealous.
Real Titus didn't speak up, so he was, by definition, the false Captain Kirk and THE CALL WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
Don't forget the curious behaviour of the dog ...
[B]leeper said: [S]licing the baby Titus in twain.
That reminds me of a story. One day a lion goes to the doctor. He says, “Hey Doc, can you do something to keep these birds from building nests in my mane? All that tweeting is driving me bonkers.”
The doctor gives the lion some powdered yeast and tells him to dust himself whenever a bird starts to build a nest.
The lion says he's got no way to carry it around.
So the doctor drapes the lion with a fine waistcoat, pulls it snug, and tells the lion to keep the yeast handy in one of the pockets.
The lion thanks the doctor and goes his merry way.
And the doctor makes a note in the lion’s chart: “Yeast for beast and vest for nest and never the mane shall tweet.”
Oh crap!
I botched my 10:42. I meant to say titus would NOT be the first to change his mind.
It doesn't happen so much anymore but there was a stretch back there where commenters were swearing off Althouse and then returning like swallows to Capistrano
No, he's mad that I thought one of the nicknames was a fake Titus and says he's never coming back.
I missed that completely.
If he left in a huff (or even a minute and a huff) and said he’s never coming back . . . well, he wouldn't be the first to change his mind later on.
We’ll see.
There!
Poor Titus, I think he was victim of identity theft by somebody with a nasty ax to grind.
I just noticed that somebody is posting over at the tail end of long thread last night as "alphaliberal". Er, shouldn't that be "AlphaLiberal"?
"I botched my 10:42. I meant to say titus would NOT be the first to change his mind."
Oh, yeah, where is Steve Simels?
Back to art criticism:
There's criticism and then there is... performance.
I think that the dancer who wrote the letter was complaining about the performance sort, the "aren't I so clever and cutting" masturbation that passes for "art criticism" but is really simply an excuse.
It's the opposite of honest.
I could, for example, explain at length that the movie Babylon AD was a disappointment and why. As long as I'm focusing on the movie it's criticism. At the point I start to focus on my own creative cleverness... it's not anymore.
And certainly people read reviews as often as not to be entertained by the review! Of course they do. But it's dishonest to suggest that those reviews are anything *but* gratuitous cruelty for their own sakes.
"I think if the guy I thought was fake were actually the real one that he would have appreciated my protection of his identity. So his failure to see that was another reason why I thought he was fake."
I still think it was the real one. And titus was never classy!
Titus is an artist of the hog and the loaf. A twofer. Which is a very rare thing in artists, who are usually johnny one notes.
Seriesly, any artist worth his/her salt shouldn't need stroking. It's not a career move, to be an artist. It's a fate. In most cases a curse. And if you're cursed you play the string out...or drop it...you don't moan.
"I still think it was the real one. And titus was never classy!"
Maybe the "real Titus" only existed in my head, and when there was that oddity that caused me to think critically, the only Titus, because he did not resemble what I had in my head, was obviously fake.
"It's not a career move, to be an artist. It's a fate. In most cases a curse."
Naw, that's just 19th century romanticized image of the artist. I think a healthier way to think about it is the medieval and early renaissance notion of the artist as artisan-craftsman, a working person like any other. Or perhaps the later Renaissance and Baroque ideal of the successful artist as head of an atelier, a business person with extraordinary abilities. Of course, people weren't making digital gender-based performative sculpture. back then, either. I don't think it's possible to be an artisan-craftsman of digital gender-based performative sculpture. That sounds like a curse.
"Maybe the "real Titus" only existed in my head, and when there was that oddity that caused me to think critically, the only Titus, because he did not resemble what I had in my head, was obviously fake"
Maybe you are Titus and don't even realize it!
Please pardon me for being helicopter-obsessed but last week the DNC national convention produced them inordinately, wot with transportation, news coverage, police, and all, and now, I'm convinced the National Guard is repositioning en masse. Excit'n inn'it? I love helicopters. They're so choppy. Too bad sonic booms have been outlawed. Those are fun too.
It's like a scene in Star Wars where the jedi council is meeting and the background outside the large windows shows a sky saturated with air vehicles. OK, it's not really like that, but sort of.
I don't think the real Titus would have went on and on about how he's the real Titus, but rather treat us all to a description of the most recent boy he had and to the details of underlying and motivating psychology if not pathology. But, I wouldn't know. I skipped them by 75%.
The world-renowned POP MUSIC CRITIC came back using new names. I know this for sure because he screwed up once by posting under “steve simels” and immediately afterwards he posted something like “Oops, I’ve blown my cover.”
I saw it happen in real time and it FREAKED ME OUT!!!1!!
This blog-commenting thing is too much like living in a Skinner box already for that kind of electric shock.
Ha!
Different types of artists are like different species, maybe even different geni--if I have the taxonomy right. Writers sit around all day, sharpening their pencils and waiting to pounce. Passive-aggressive pricks. Dancers are free flowing spirits who dazzle life with their spontaneity. Plus in the days before gymns they were the only girls with great bodies. Dancers are terrific people....I've known two opera singers. They were both hearty and good natured. That might be the stereotype... I've known a fair number of actors. Maybe it's all the rejection they have to endure in order to make a living, but many seem brittle and phony....I don't know any fine artists. The biographies of them that I have read make me rejoice in my good luck for never having met one....The act of creating music and dance is probably its own reward. The other arts not so much.
I am Titus.
Whose the singer, Enya? I can't keep track of the celticish artists.
Simels is reading this, of course. In his underpants.
Maybe you are Titus and don't even realize it!
The first rule of Titus club is: Don't talk about Titus club.
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends.
--Anton Ego (voiced by Peter O'Toole)
Ratatouille
"The first rule of Titus club is: Don't talk about Titus club."
There's a little Titus in all of us!
Oh, wait... Um...
Ick.
"Simels is reading this, of course. In his underpants."
Better than Simels reading this out of his underpants.
Ok, double ick.
Palladian grosses himself out--twice!
Maybe the "real Titus" only existed in my head, and when there was that oddity that caused me to think critically, the only Titus, because he did not resemble what I had in my head, was obviously fake.
No, it wasn't all in your head. I noticed it independently of you too. The style, tone, sense of humour, education was all different.
Do yourself a favour, as I did last night by happenstance.
I was reading that very first Sarah Palin post you wrote, back in June. The one where she was wearing that god-awful pelt.
The conversation changed to SJP, and why gay men like her.
And you tell me this latest Titus is THAT Titus.
No way. No how. No hog.
If I may act as a critic for a moment...
I don't appreciate Titus (real Titus) quite as much as some of you. It's not that he isn't funny, but he doesn't have nearly enough actual material to post as frequently as he does when he's here. He'd get better mileage if he were a bit more sparing.
William,
I think that's a bit too pat. Within each type there's huge variation that really swamps those stereotypes.
For example, in my own experience in a local music-presenting organization, and that of my colleagues, Kathleen Battle is everything they say about her and worse--far worse, actually, because just reading in Time Magazine about how she would call her agent on her cell phone to call the limo company to call the driver to ask him to turn the heat up or down, is nothing compared to actually interacting with such a person face-to-face.
On the other hand, both Richard Stoltzman and Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg proved to be wonderful human beings, every bit as engaging on the one-to-one level as they appear to be on stage. (I was tasked once with taking Salerno-Sonnenberg to the airport the morning after a concert, and she won my heart by being repeatedly and profusely apologetic about how early I had to pick her up!)
vb,
What's wrong with that pelt??? Perhaps you have never seen it in its proper context.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा