The critique handbook was humorous in a way that it truthfully tells us how "critique" is like in art school, but, at the same time, that truthfulness made me feel a bit uncomfortable and awkward. Her description on "critiques" are very detailed. The atmosphere of the room, attitude of the students, ways of talking. . . It is nice to learn how to understand and appreciate art at a more educated level, but I feel like, that kind of specific directions really limits art to what it's "supposed to be." I have mentioned in our class multiple times that art shouldn't get analyzed, but rather, it should be enjoyed. I feel like art schools or books like this drive students into how to become smart and clever, but I am not sure if their "love" toward art is any sincere.
On the other hand, I wonder, if my thought on "No Smart Art" is too naive. Is it possible to appreciate art just by pure emotional reaction? Maybe, being "smart" is somewhat necessary. For example, I really love Nan Goldin's works, but, honestly, my first reaction to her works 3 years ago was like, "What the hell! These can't be good photographs!" If I didn't read more about her or didn't take an art history class, I may still not like her works. In this case, my theory of "let's just enjoy art" doesn't exactly work out.
Honestly, I am always kind of scared to make a big statement, because I'd hate to be paradoxical. I still do think that art is something to be enjoyed, not smartly analyzed, but education is certainly needed too. So, how do I become an educated artist, not a smart asshole?
No comments:
Post a Comment