On 20 March 2015 at 23:43, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 20 March 2015 at 20:57, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A fundamental difference in science is that peer reviewers are other >>> scientists, working on their own research. There are no professional >>> critics in science. >>> >>> That's true (I think). But there are plenty of commentators and so on, >> as well as science popularisers, and some scientists who are critical of >> others outside their areas of expertise. And some who are just critical of >> others full stop (Fred Hoyle was one I believe). >> > > True, but notice that art critics are not merely commentators. They more > or less decide which artists become financially successful, which will then > influence what you are likely to see at a museum of modern art or an > exhibition. > True. They also have a very, very bad track record, generally none of them have any idea whatsoever about which artist will become famous, popular, and so on. What you are describing leads to the stifling of artistic ability rather than anything else, from the Academy through to Tracey Emin. > In science, although it doesn't hurt to have good press, your success is > mostly determined by your colleagues. Peer-reviews and citations. In sports > it's perhaps even more meritocratic: the commentators can say what they > want, but a football player who converts a high percentage of kicks into > goals will be hired by a top team. > It's certainly easier in sport to decide who is doing well! But my point was just that there are critics (of various sorts) in just about any field. Obviously there are critics in all the arts - music, visual art, sculpture, writing, poetry, dance, films, plays, computer games, and so on. > > I sense that Brent is perhaps suggesting that art is mostly bullshit. > Yes. Which I would tend to agree with though perhaps not for the same reasons. I'm sure Brent can answer you on that one, and tell me if he's one of those people who look at a painting and say "My little girl could do better than that!" * My reason is that Sturgeon's law applies to art, as to most things. > I have several very smart science/engineering-type friends who hold > similar positions. I would say that this steams from a bias towards > goal-driven endeavours. Real art has no goal. > I'm not sure I agree. I think that artists are often striving towards some personal goal, just not one that anyone else can (necessarily) grasp. (Explicating this is one function of art critics.) Even my humble desires to write fantasy novels and devise ever more fiendish cryptic crosswords are driven by some inner demons. Also, a lot of art has a social function. I think what you're saying is only true, if it is at all, in the present greed-driven corporate-ruled world. > The business of art has a goal, and rich people care about what critics > say because they are making an investment, and wish to mitigate risk > through social proof. This is perhaps a bit depressing, but does it really > matter? We are all still free to create and appreciate art (or not) as we > please. > Only if we have the time and resources, art being as Hedda Gabler said when she burned the manuscript**, like babies. * The punchline in the "Robotman" cartoon (after our hero had delivered a lecture on abstract art) was that "my little girl" has a BA from the Royal School of Art, of course. ** If I remember correctly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
