“…criticism doesn’t mean delivering petty, ill-tempered Simon Cowell-like put-downs. It doesn’t necessarily mean heaping scorn. It means making fine distinctions. It means talking about ideas, aesthetics and morality as if these things matter (and they do). It’s at base an act of love. Our critical faculties are what make us human.” -Dwight Garner
“What the critic has to give is the fruits of looking laggardly, an attention that appears in increasingly lesser quantities today, a long and sustained commitment to coaxing meaning from mute objects” -Anya Ventura
Is critical distance measured in the space between critic and viewer or between critic and art? These two quotes address whether the critic includes oneself as a fellow spectator and how that shapes their teetering priority to either the art, the viewer, or neither.
If art without a spectator is nothing, Dwight Garner’s definition makes sure the spectator knows they are everything. In the high culture version of an it’s complicated relationship, Garner defines criticism at its core as an act of love. Love, not expertise, not taste, not knowledge, is the driving force behind unlocking the valuable ideas within all forms of art. While the head and the heart are both equally capable of interpretation, Garner urges their equality of experience as well.
Garner includes the critic in the world of the spectator, hinting at an autonomy long lost to the insularity of many art markets. While his warm and fuzzy definition ultimately leaves the question of what place exists for the professional critic in a world full of capable spectators, I really didn’t mind him not answering. He emphasizes the democracy of his definition through pointedly stating “our critical faculties make us human” while being careful not to suggest passive criticism exists. In direct opposition to the “Simon Cowell-like” disposition now associated with criticism, Garner does not paint the critic as reactionary but instead as reflexive. In order to construct a proper critique out of fine distinctions, Garner is suggesting a level of commitment. Commitment to let yourself be the first filter before any wall text or gallery guide (…but still read them), commitment to ruminate, commitment to listen to how you feel, commitment to sit on the bench rather than walk to the next piece. After all, what’s love without commitment?
While Anya Ventura explicitly uses the keyword of commitment to signal a true critic, her view of critical commitment is not as rooted in populism or excitedly optimistic as Garner’s. Instead, she romanticizes the critic’s connection to art so separately from the spectator’s connection that they effectively exist in different realms of reality. In stark contrast to Garner’s communitas of spectator and critic as they experience liminality together hand-in-hand through white cube galleries everywhere, Ventura elevates the cultural critic as one who lives in a betwixt state with the art. An inaccessible state to mere spectators where critics act as snake charmers laboriously playing their instruments, hypnotizing until their “long and sustained commitment” finally ennobles them to “coax meaning from mute objects.”
Yes, a little dramatic of an interpretation I will admit, but something about the idea of mute objects seems to undermine the whole basis of criticism. All objects are overflowing with intent and meaning, maybe even screaming. While a metaphorical muteness leaves the spectator lacking agency, a literal muteness snatches away any agency from the art.
At the end of the day, looking and thinking with attention and commitment is where both authors agree. But to Garner, this is the moment spectators can dig into, the moment where they are more than a set of eyes, as Ventura suggests, but complex beings ready to unpack their baggage of emotional, experiential humanity. At this same moment, to Ventura, a spectator’s gaze rests easy and empty from a place of consumption (let’s imagine from a trough if we want to be dramatic here) —it is the critic who has the gifted ability to not just consume, but digest.
While both authors agree that commitment, experience, and depth constitute cultural criticism, their other differences (especially the role of spectator) stem more from their ideas of culture rather than criticism. Ventura reads as aggressively Arnoldian at times, striving for perfection through logged hours and lamenting “opinions no longer hold the same currency.” Garner is still aware of all the technological and social changes Ventura is alluding to yet finds a way to include them in the field of cultural criticism rather than lovingly tucking in the old definition to rest easy as time marches onward.
Cultural criticism must be defined by its relationship to both the art as well as the spectator—so why not be a little nicer to them both?
380 Comments
You have an answer for this question and you prepared for the examination. https://ok9.guide/
What will you learn tomorrow and class are you in here. https://w88.lat/
Never offer to teach fish to swim. https://j88.singles/
Nobody has ever shed tears without seeing a coffin. nhà cái Kubet
All roads lead to Rome very good. BET88
This is an excellent post I seen thanks to share it. It is really what I wanted to see hope in future you will continue for sharing such a excellent post.
valuevillagelistens
Diamond cuts diamond. mu888.biz
Spare the rod and spoil the child. fb888.info
It’s no use beating around the bush. I9BET
Out of sight out of mind and very good. U888
Trang phim hot miễn phí 2024https://beheo.net/
this is a great article, appreciate the information, I’ve read similar things on this website: https://iscanner.com/excel-to-pdf-converter/
East or West home is best. Kuwin
Love me love my dog. https://daga88.center/
Access hello88.eu to receive an 88k promotion https://hello88.eu
This discussion on the role of the critic in art is deeply insightful, particularly in how it emphasizes the relationship between the critic, the viewer, and the art itself. The idea that criticism is driven by love rather than mere expertise or knowledge resonates strongly with how we engage with beauty in various forms, including nature.
Much like how a critic connects deeply with art, a gardener or flower enthusiast forms a special bond with the flowers they grow or admire. Flowers, in their silent beauty, invite us to commit, to observe, and to appreciate their nuances, much like art does. This connection between nature and human emotion is beautifully captured in the way we name flowers, as these names often carry cultural and emotional significance.
If you’re interested in exploring the names of flowers in different languages, you might find this link helpful: https://flowersname.co/
He laughs best who laughs last. Hay88
Grasp all lose all very good. https://i9bet.theater/
Nothing venture nothing gains. Nhà cái Kubet
The empty vessel makes greatest sound. GOOD88
Hello I am so excited I found your website, I really found you by error, while I was researching on Google for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a tremendous post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the great job.
Ketahui Net
He who excuses himself, accuses himself. SV66
Get your fingers ready for Cookie Clicker 2. Dive into an expanded world of cookie-clicking excitement!
Good watch prevents misfortune. 78win
Great minds think alike. abc8
He that knows nothing doubts nothing. nhà cái Kubet
His eyes are bigger than his belly. https://bet88.sarl/