Here's how it works.Not getting a review means your work sucks or is so boring nobody wants to talk about it. 83% of the shows fall into this category.Getting a positive or descriptive review means your work is good or relevant or interesting or at least worth taking a look at. 15% of the work falls into this category.Getting a negative review means you're a force to be reckoned with. You're doing something that's so compelling (even though it's bad) that it can't be ignored. Or your career is so hot that even your bad work needs to be addressed. 2% of the shows are in this category and it's a good place to be.
most critics are pansies and most editors bed-wetting morons. bad reviews are bad for business. and nobody likes a "downer." it's stupid, like grade inflation.
As Anonymous 3, I prefer the logic, although not practical, of Anonymous 1 to Anonymous 2.
Critical attention, whether Bad or Good is still attention. 85% of art critics are also usually so so or bad. 15% of Art critics are compelling and almost always on the mark. I have actually found a few critics whom usually write a bad review, because they don't get it. I have also found that these "bad shows" may be the shows to go take a look at for myself, as I usually tend to consistantly disagree with the same horrible critics. In life, "Pareto's 80/20principle" is still in effect even with art critics and the artists they review.
I think a lot of art critics function with naive awareness about art and therefore go the safe descriptive route. Just because they went to art school doesn't mean they had good instructors and therefore bad criticism perpetuates. Most 'critics' believe what is written in the press release and are not critical enough to be critical of if the art justifies the descriptor - everything about a work of art should be in the art not in some statement telling you what to see. I've heard of cases where the critic didn't even go see the show but based their review on the press release. Lazy bunch.
Post a Comment