Freak You « PREV | NEXT »: Only in America, Yeah

August 14, 2008

Presumptuous Presumptions

As a reader, one thing that bothers me about some critics is their presumption of an artist's intentions and their then attacking that artist for what they have presumed. Let's say an artist creates an original theater piece or stages an extant piece or choreographs a known score/scenario or paints a picture or writes a book. The critic presumes to know that the artist doesn't really truly sincerely believe in the material at hand, and is thus cynically or frivolously blowing it off, and hence can be attacked for insincerity or mendaciousness.

The trouble is, what if the artist does indeed turly sincerely believe in what he or she is doing. Then what? The critic may still feel free to dislike what he/she sees, but the entire conceit of blaming the artist for manipulative insincerity collapses on a false premise, yet the innocent reader has no idea that the critic's presumption was incorrect.

My complaint is not to be confused with that old saw artists sometimes play, wherein the critic is criticised for not accepting or understanding the terms on which the artist was working. In my recent experience, this complaint becomes especially acute in experimental dance, which almost invariably comes freighted with explanatory verbiage impenetrable in its vacuousness and pomposity. The critic has every right to judge a work on his (or her; political correctness can be BORING) terms, but not to presume a knowledge of the artist's terms when he doesn't really know them at all.

This is turn leads to the hoary issue of how close a critic should be to an artist, and hence how boldly he may assume knowledge of the artist's intentions on the basis of intense discussion and close observation of the artist at work. In a sense, we're all mysterious; we don't even know our own motives. So any presumption of another's intentions, even after close contact, may be illusory. And close contact invites all manner of social awkwardness and perceived or actual conflicts of interest that vitiate whatever insight may have been gained.

I am no formalist critic, determined to parse the text free of all encumbering historical or psychological context. Context -- temporal, cultural, personal -- is important, crucial. It's just that there are presumptuous bounds one can overstep, and one should try one's very best not to do that. 

August 14, 2008 2:41 PM | | Comments (0)

Leave a comment

















Archives

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


About

    ARTicles ARTicles is a project of 
    the National Arts Journalism Program, an association of some 500 journalists in the United States. Our group blog is a place for arts and cultural journalists to share ideas and information, to celebrate what we do, and to make the case for its continuing value. ARTicles is edited by Laura Collins-Hughes. To contact her, click here.
    more

    ARTicles Bloggers Meet our bloggers: Sasha Anawalt, MJ Andersen, Alicia Anstead, Laura Bleiberg, Larry Blumenfeld, Jeanne Carstensen, Robert Christgau, Laura Collins-Hughes, Thomas Conner, Lily Tung Crystal, Richard Goldstein, Patti Hartigan, Glenn Kenny, Wendy Lesser, Ruth Lopez, Nancy Malitz, Douglas McLennan, Tom Moon, Abe Peck, Peter Plagens, John Rockwell, Werner Trieschmann, Lesley Valdes and Douglas Wolk. more

    NAJP NAJP is America's largest organization dedicated to the advancement of arts and cultural journalism. The NAJP has produced research, publications and discussions and works to bring together journalists, artists, news executives, cultural organization administrators, funders and others concerned with arts and culture in America today. more

    Join NAJP Join America's largest organization of arts journalists. Here's how more

see all archives

Contact: articles@najp.org