art review
A few weeks ago, I was reading SFGate and came across an art review. It was bitchy and catty and scathing, so even though I was unfamiliar with the artist or exhibition in question, I read it. It was funny, and made interesting points about what makes something "art" in the first place. I read it aloud to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
metaphorge.
A couple of weeks later, I saw a response. Apparently the author had managed to seriously upset a number of readers with his negative review, and he got a lot of angry responses. He wrote a column in reply.
Below the cut you can read the response column. I think it's brave and insightful, and I'm still thinking about it even now a week later. You don't need to read the review to get context, or to know anything about the works of the artist in question. It talks a lot about the nature of art criticism, and what distinguishes art from the merely pretty.
( Read more... )
metaphorge.A couple of weeks later, I saw a response. Apparently the author had managed to seriously upset a number of readers with his negative review, and he got a lot of angry responses. He wrote a column in reply.
Below the cut you can read the response column. I think it's brave and insightful, and I'm still thinking about it even now a week later. You don't need to read the review to get context, or to know anything about the works of the artist in question. It talks a lot about the nature of art criticism, and what distinguishes art from the merely pretty.
( Read more... )