Group crits are such an established part of the curriculum in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere, that only a few teachers reject them. Dave Hickey, an art critic who describes his pedagogic style as “Uncle Buck—Hey, smoke this,” is one of the few. “My one rule,” he says in his freewheeling southwestern drawl, “is that I do not do group crits. They are social occasions that reinforce the norm. They impose a standardized discourse. They privilege unfinished, incompetent art.” He tells his students, “If you’re not sick, don’t call the doctor.” Hickey is not alone in thinking that there is undue pressure on artists to verbalize. Many believe that artists shouldn’t be obliged to explain their work. As Hickey declares, “I don’t care about an artist’s intentions. I care if the work looks like it might have some consequences.
Sarah Thornton —Seven Days in the Art World, p. 54
My sister is reading Seven Days in the Art World, the best-selling quick read by Sarah Thornton, so I picked it up and read Chapter Two, “The Crit”. It only delves shallowly into interesting topics, but seems like a light and sweet overview for people that want to know a little about a lot.
To clarify: this is interesting to think about, but I’m not necessarily sure I agree. See this quote by Albert Brooks about having too much of other people’s opinions.
I’m not convinced that the purpose of a crit is to create good artwork (though it might be a side effect) or that a good crit is most valuable for the person being critiqued. The artist being critiqued is, in my experience, no way obliged to act on the class’s feedback. However, learning how to talk about what’s in front of me is important for me as an artist and being able to engage in a conversation that includes the artist is important for the group-at-large
hello@caseyagollan.com / Subscribe to RSS / Email Updates
Subscribe via RSS.
