Critiquing the Critic

Greenberg on Pollock: An Interview by T. J. Clark

            I agree with Greenberg in that while Pollack moved himself away from the containment and orderliness of “regular art”, his paintings do possess an orderliness all their own.  Jackson Pollock is associated with Dionysian painting. Clement Greenberg comments on that characterization. He argues that the only demand on art is that it just be good art. Some have even classified Pollack’s art as Dionysian, which represents pieces that are frenzied and undisciplined; both of which Greenberg disagreed with, stating that art just needs to look good. He stated that the paintings leaned more towards Apollonian if it had to be categorized. I think Greenberg felt that by categorizing a painter and paintings you are pigeon holding them into a design that may not fit what they are trying to represent. I believe that is the key when criticizing art. If you look at a painting with its genre in mind, you may only be looking for the things that represent that genre and missing out on the “message” of the painting to begin with.  I like how Greenberg stated that whatever didn’t “sit right” on a painting that Pollack would go back in and rescue his art. It shows how personal these pieces were to him by using the term “rescue”. Greenberg understood how close artists become to their paintings by using that term. He didn’t say “fix it” or “start over” or “repair”, He said RESCUE. That stood out to me. Just by using one different word to call something out on an artist or a painting changes the thought process behind it.

 

The Critics: Stories from the Inside Pages

“You’re helping the arts of your time to stay alive and be vital” is one of the quotes in the beginning montage that stuck out for me. It is the job of the critic to get not only the audience to THINK, but to give relevance/notoriety to the art of their generation. A part of me is swayed at the idea that one person can go in and say “this is good” and this is bad” of someone else’s works. This irks me for the main reason that when someone reads or hears a critique it can sway their judgment rather than just have them experience it all on their own and come out of it with their own feelings. But on the other hand, people are talking about something and just that fact alone is good for the artist. Another key factor is that the critic has a passion for the genre that they are critiquing. The medium they have chosen speaks to them on a deeper level and so they are critiquing what they love, what they live for. That’s an important factor because they have an no interest in let’s say movies, or hate reading and that’s what they are judging it doesn’t work. They are skewed. I liked this video a lot because it showed me that these reviewers love the genre they are in, whether it be music or movies or art or books. Most of them fell in love at an early age and felt like it was their calling to try and bring that love to the masses. This was very viable information to obtain, because it shows the tremendous responsibility the media has in our culture. The responsibility that a critique has to the genre that they are so in love with coincides with being able to bring it to the masses so that the public can experience it as well.