Through reading the various statements in Les Levine’s 1966 Critic transcript, it is clear that every art critic has a different perspective on how they view the line of discourse that is art criticism. Two that stood out to me were Peter Schjeldahl and Michael Benedikt.
Schjeldahl shares a more optimistic viewpoint, discussing his belief that artists are creating great pieces of work, even though he does not love what the critics have to say. He feels his role as a critic is essential when it comes to providing education about current art, although states “But I think everyone who can should become a critic for a while so that he can find out for himself and then not worry about it anymore.” This demonstrates a certain faith in viewers and encourages audience members to learn by doing, not just by reading. In Lucy Lippard's interview in What it Means to Write about Art, she shares how "Reading just leads to writing." This was her starting point in becoming a writer and eventually a critic. I feel it supports Schjeldahl's belief in removing the barriers between the art, critics, and audience by inviting those to try for themselves and be inspired through reading. I feel this helps flatten the elevation and hierarchy that some critics instill by using language that is inaccessible to most audiences, keeping a strict line between everyday viewers and the conversation.
On the other hand, Benedikt interrogates the role of the audience, pointing a finger at them for being ignorant with a “lack of ability to judge what's working or not.” He comes across with a pessimistic viewpoint of the art world occurring at his time, stating, "I think that one could vanish, at this point, form the art scene for about a year without missing very much.” This opinion shows Benedikt feels it's the audience's fault that mediocre art is being produced, and perhaps it’s their willingness to accept all art without critical judgment on whether it is working, but focusing too hard on its newness and existence. This directly defies Schjeldahl who finds the "continual existence" of art more significant than "formal developments."
Both Schjeldahl and Benedikt bring thought-provoking viewpoints highlighting audiences' importance in exploring art with their own critical lens, not just letting critics speak for them but developing their own opinions. Yet they oppose each other in their approach. Where Schjeldahl says "you don't have to be right to be great," Benedikt sees ignorance as a major hinderance to the culture of art.
These two critics do offer a great contrast -- the views seem almost exactly diametrically opposed!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this detailed comparison of the two critics. I also chose Schjedhal and I believe he resonates with many young art viewers in the sense that they want to learn and not just be influenced by other writing. Thinking for ourselves as educated young adults is one way to improve our understanding of art. Enduring in a critic who shoves their own feelings or criticism down our throats is one that does not include the audience but creates a hierarchy between them.
ReplyDelete