READER MIKE DISAGREES WITH INUD ON THE FACT THAT ONLY ARTISTS CAN BE CRITICS:
‘I appreciate your point, but as an artist as well, I think critics do have an essential role to play. It is not to explain why work should be bought, it should be to maintain a rigorous questioning of the elements and processes of art making, as well as to call out artists who themselves use jargon to explain poor work, spectacle to hide poor craft and/or artists who would rather live a certain lifestyle as opposed to simply getting down to work.
Art develops over a long period of time both on a personal and an absolute level. A critic should be someone who looks a lot, thinks a lot about what they see and then speaks lucidly, with evidence, about what they have seen. This is the service a critic should provide to keep the process of art vigorous and relevant.
Art critics like artists today need to extricate themselves from forces of the Art Market and look to their societies to address the questions that make art relevant. Also, a critic should be thought of as a sensitive viewer, as they look more than most, and can therefore offer insights into an artist’s work.
I agree that some critics are full of wind that seeps out as a stinking miasma of jargon and sales pitch, but are there not as many artists equally full of that?
The critical process is essential in any art training, so why should that stop after the artist “graduates” and enters the professional sphere or at any time?
Instead, demand integrity and evidence, which will start the dialog, which may prove to be both useful and inspiring.’