Hi Emily, I apologize for not completing this portion of the assignment on time. After reading many reviews, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the art review genre. Most writers tend to follow a similar model, unless they have an unusual agenda. While the art review reflects the basic structure of formal analysis, it tends to be more casual than an academic paper. So instead of reading a dry analysis of some postimpressionist painting to a fauveist work, the art review enjoys brevity and personal touch. Its kinda like an art weatherman. The critic attends the show and typically follows this rubric:
Description: What does it look like? Format. Scale. Color.
Analysis: How does it function? Artistic intent? Goal? Historical/contemporary relationships.
Judgment: Is it effective? Do I like it?
It is then left to the critic to adjudicate cultural value. The critic is both empowered and troubled, presiding over an expressive culture. Art is the most sophisticated form of communication and it is here that the critic must establish a discernible palette. It is their responsibility to cull from the herd, promoting talent and discouraging the rest. Thus a reciprocal set of relationships is established where power is concurrently granted and subsequently used to champion the best work. Ideally, a meritocratic system of critic and artist, both reliant on the other for support and service.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment