What's the dfference between an artist and a critic?

...or is there one?

[jip strak]

an artist makes art
and a critic gives critic to that art?

Yes, sure, but is there some essential difference to the way each approaches art? Is there some fundamental difference between the artist and the critic in their views of life? And is it possible to be an artist and a critic simultaneously?

I like your top 3 incidentally.

Trying to answer my own question, I found this wonderful piece of writing on Silence Machine (www.silencemachine.blogspot.co m), which I'm now rudely excepting without permission:


The difference between an artist and a critic

There are, of course, more important things than art: life itself, what actually happens to you. This may sound silly, but I have to say it, given what I've heard art-silly people say all my life: I say that if you have to choose between life and happiness or art, remember always to choose life and happiness. Art solves nothing, either for the artist himself or for those who receive his art.

Clement Greenburg via Terry Teachout. This could, I think, be key in understanding the friction betwixt artists and critics. For an artist, there is no separation between art and life. The two are the same. This fundamental chasm separating the artist and the critic is perhaps unbridgable for a statement such as this would never even occur to the artist. For the artist, there is no choice. There is no decision. An artist is who she is because she is an artist. She doesn't choose it. She doesn't decide, "Hmm, a happy life or art?" This is rubbish. An artist is not made, she is born.

This quote, as small as it is, provides a wealth of insight into the mind of a critic. The critic is riddled with contempt and hostility for art and artists. Even the word "art" has become something of a perjorative connotating "haughty," "self-indulgent," "lofty," and the ever-faithful, oh so goddammned tired and boring "pretentious." One can be "arty," which, boiled down, translates into: "I can't understand this so instead of trying, this person is arty and pretentious." Critics are lazy. Instead of making any sort of effort, they wallow in their paint-by-the-numbers analyses and connect-the-dots conclusions. Now, I don't care if someone is contemptuous or, gasp, snobby, but a critic raises himself above these states. You see, because a critic can never have contempt for an artist or an audience; nay, only the artist is capable of being a pretentious, self-indulgent sleaze out to erode the precious culture. See, I know I am a petty, judgmental, trivial, self-indulgent, pretentious, hypocritical, deceitful asshole, but who isn't? Show me one person who hasn't lied, hasn't cheated, hasn't said one thing and done another, hasn't made someone else feel like abject garbage and I'll show you an objective, nonpartisan American newspaper. But, see, critics have the wrong concept of what art is. They are the ones with the pretensions and lofty ideals because a critic wants something that will make him feel better about himself. A critic wants something that'll take him away from his life, his problems, his fears. This is not art. Art is not escapism. Art is not an ideal, somewhere in the clouds. Art is experience. See, and I'd bet the typical critic reading this would roll her eyes, smirk, and limn the points of her rebuttal without really thinking about what she's reading. Think about that. Critics can dish it out, but they can't take it. They refuse. Isn't that why every self-satisfied critic with a blog is having a field day over this whole "snark" fiasco? What is Heidi Julavtis' "manifesto," essentially? A critique on criticism. She was criticizing critics. And how did the critics respond? With snarkified outrage, predictably. In other words, they're hypocrites who deal harshly, but even if someone writes some milquetoast, meandering "manifesto" about snark, these "critics" come flailing forth, talons unsheathed. Isn't that fucking hilarious? I find it so fuzzy and cute that these big, bad, snarkified critics have taken such fucking OFFENSE to The Believer. God, the reek of diarrhea is almost too much to bear. These people don't even have respect for criticism, for if they did, they would not abide by the rules set up to protect them and their insulated, coddled purviews. One of these arbitrary rules in this bloated, savage game is that if you are an artist, you are not to respond to a negative review. Look at Charles Taylor at Co-lawn, he had a fit because Peter Bart, the editor at Variety had some, um, criticisms toward critics. The fucking NERVE. Didn't Bart read the manual? Didn't anyone brief him on the commandments? Critics talk a good game about loving "controversy" and works and/or people who shake things up, but this is shit. Look at Julavits who swung a mighty blow at the "criticosphere" and look at how critics responded. These people don't love controversy, but the illusion of it. They don't love honesty, but the illusion of it. It's why these pop culture mavens vehemently defend their love of "reality TV" and debate the philosophical merits of The Matrix. It's why they have one link section for "left-wing" blogs, and another for "right-wing" blogs, lest anyone dare accuse them of not favoring objectivity. It's why some of them complain of bias whilst stridently refusing to acknowledge their own.

I don't give a shit about Peter Bart. I didn't even know who he was until Chuck Taylor threw his middle-aged temper tantrum at Co-Lawn. I don't give a shit about Heidi Julavits. I haven't read her books and I have zero desire to do so. The Believer is just another magazine in a long line of many that had one good piece, the interview with Galen Strawson, and not much else. At eight fucking dollars, they are too expensive and too not-very-interesting for me to support. And honestly, it is easier for me to deal with negative criticism than praise. Sure, it's somewhat annoying when the only comment someone can give me is, "You need a pronoun here," but I feel downright baffled and uneasy when someone says, "Wow, this is awesome." I know what to do with a negative comment. I don't know what to dow ith a positive one. My beef is this: snark isn't any closer to the truth than feel-good fuzziness is. In fact, snark is a form of feel-good fuzziness. It makes you feel good to show off with your witticisms, esoteric references, and shiny language. All the better at someone else's expense.

I know how a critic thinks — I am one. Who isn't? When I rip someone a new one, I do it because I feel as if they've fallen below a standard, perhaps an arbitrary one, but a standard nonetheless. I don't do it just to be an asshole. When I feel underwhelmed when listening to Bjork's Vespertine it is because there is so much hype around her and yet I feel as if I've heard her music before. I don't understand why Radiohead is so popular and Do Make Say Think is still wallowing in relative obscurity.

There is really only one critic whose opinion is worth anything to me and that is Ray Carney [look to your right]. He can be vitriolic, polemical, and downright fucking nasty, but he is because he cares. He sees through the bullshit of irony and sentementality. Carney has something to say. He has a philosophy, an argument. He knows that art and life are inseparable. There is no choice. No decision. Only will. For him, and for any artist, art is not an ideal, but an experience. A journey. It is about seeing things in entirely new, different ways. To any old critic, an artist is in the clouds, elevated above the mundane; for Carney, this is shit. An artist isn't a celebrity, someone on the cover of a magazine, but Mabel Longhetti, an unclassifiable, multivalent, apolitical, acultural entity. An artist isn't someone to look up to, but someone beneath, writhing on the floor, along with the dirt. An artist is below the worms, eating and shitting soil. An artist doesn't provide any answers. There is no clarity, no explanation, no package, no bow. Carol White is beyond any patent, easy-to-identify political resolution. It is never clear to us what is wrong with her or who she is. She is, at best, "confused." John Cassavetes wasn't someone "to look up to," he was a mean, violent, unpredictable, desperate, co-dependent con man. He could also be heartbreakingly generous, thoughtful, sensitive, caring, and loving, but who will see those things? People's views are limited. I ramble, I stammer, I trip, I foul up. I am not perfect and neither is life. Life isn't about "beauty." Since when was art about "beauty"? About perfection? About answers? Clarity is the enemy. There is no peace. Within every man rages a war. All I have is what you say to me, how you say it, what you do, how you do it. I don't know anything. I just know my life and even that is confusing, jumbled, nonsensical, unclear, etc. and possibly moreso than anyone else's life because I am in my life. I live it, obviously. I can't detach myself and view things objectively. Art solving anything is a juvenile point of view. There are no sufficient answers. Right now I'm writing about a girl who kills herself. Someone could ask why she does it. What do you mean, why? Why does anyone kill themselves? Is there ever a sufficient reason? Why does anyone do the things they do? Maybe to them they are justified, but to you, they are not. Even Teachout can understand this as he quotes Renoir: ". . . everybody has his reasons." But this is the insanity, for even you cannot understand the things you do or the way that you are.

Greenberg is right, art doesn't "solve" anything. There is no great puzzle, no mystery. There is only life. Why look for an answer? An answer is cessation. Knowledge is death. Clarity is an illusion and closure is a lie. And what is art? Life.
- posted by pete @ 7:07 PM
9.13.2003

[V Knid esq]

The best critics - I'd suggest Paul Morley and David Toop as examples - ARE artists.

[jip strak]

Originally posted by V Knid esq
The best critics - I'd suggest Paul Morley and David Toop as examples - ARE artists.

well good criticism is an art, no?

[Lady E]

tis true that often a good critic has experience of the creative process...they have to have to write well.

[SimonH]

"A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car".

Kenneth Tynan

[Lady E]

yes, well thats true of me. i can talk endlessly and insightfully about music but unless anyone wants to hear greensleeves on the recorder, i cant play or write or sing it.

[animal night train]

I'm an artist and I criticise everything.

[emef]

artist dissects,creates,hopes then panics.

critic dissects,gets paid then pays mortgage.

The critics have to understand the art, so they're a bit artsit...

[huey]

the most critics are unable to do art. so they critize ... ;-)

[audiofelch]

bad citics are fucking lazy and dogmatic. their relationship to art is often one of condescention and pretentions of omnipotence.. thsi fucks me off... it indicates what they are probly like as people.. unwilling to try and engage with any one elses opinion unless it fortifies thier own stale half-baked philosophies..

doesnt the best art undo the way you think?
that s when art is revolutionary and potent.
the shit critic seems to be afraid of having their little world of categorizations and canons that theyve so pedantically tended to (well they have no talent or anything else) ruptured or destroyed..

i like reading other artists' responses to art because it seems to be sympathetic, positive, not just out to knock people down.. theyre not scared of having their views destroyed, because they either have strength and conviction in what they do or are hungry for new ideas...and if their neither of these and just an obnoxious cock.. theyre helluva lot more amusing than some shit critic...



good critics can be fucking useful/inspirational tho, ive come to so much cool stuff and ideas etc from good articles..

critics are great, they save you loads of time by telling you what to like so you don't have to actually appreciate the work for yourself. there is just so much stuff out there i would like to get into, but i don't have time. by reading a reputable clever magazine like the wire or listening to 'front row' on radio 4 i can talk knowledgably on subjects i really know nothing about. brilliant! i love doing that, as anyone who knows me knows.

[agent dos]

taking critics comments into account is one thing... but if it sways somebodies creativity too much, then the final product will have lost its initial intent. Its good to know as many opinions as possible... but maybe sometimes its best not to take any notice...

after all, if music is art (expression)... then its all subjective.

I don't think there is a big difference.... everybody is a potential critic.

lot's of critics DON'T understand art..... so they criticize it

[Tec]

Originally posted by circuit_freak
...or is there one?

Critics i find generally are failed writers.

Artists are creative, critics create opinions based on what they may think...which most of the time i couldn't give a flying as i like to make up my own mind about things.

Funny thing about art- it's so subjective. But is it?

The art dealer is the ultimate critic. The industry is based on what they say.

It is not up to the artist to deem their art good or not.

That to me is funny, but is it?

It surely is not up to the artist but to the audience, right?


The critic approaches art with a toolbox of adjectives and preconceived notions of what they believe is good or bad.
But an artist 'just does'. One can be moved by art-
One can be moved to create art.

But the biggest difference, is that the great ones/ the masters of any art, 'suffer'. This correlation leads to the stuff you write home about and find in the encyclopedia. You practice on the piano, emulate the strokes, memorize the passages and debate over endless pints if life is hell.

[marcel]

a critic has the same relationship towards art as a kidnapper has towards kids

Great answers all. Hilarious!

[Lady E]

i see all cristicism as a kind of navigational tool, as bitch one suggests. you use it to filter, there is too much cultural production out there to base it all on your own experience. so you go with people who have pointed you in the direction of good stuff in the past.

[invisibleplanet]

i hear what you're saying about the art critic, and the industry being based on what they say, a.rodin.

i see the critic as an artist in his own write...maybe an 'impressionist' as he seeks to impress his opinion on the viewer. LOL
I am making two portfolio's for two talented artists at the moment, and am very aware of the gallery/critics stance when presenting art to them....am in hope that the Pump House Gallery will exhibit one of the Art Collections from 'my' artists *g, in fact, i have to visit London again b4 Xmass for this very purpose.

[invisibleplanet]

what really pisses me off about ANY kind of art/music/fashion critique is that vulgar negativitst, whereby the writer doesn't have anything good to say about the subject, and wrote the article with the intent of passing on their negative opinion to the reader... i personally don't see the point of this, and find it rather crude..i think that's why i enjoy reading reviews in http://www.thewire.co.uk
as they don't tend to make crude judgements

[phonudja]

a critic is not someone who just wants to turn his personal taste into public opinion, criticism is not simply a question of I like it/ I don't like it.
partly true in music (david toop has been named here), especially in literature lots of writers have also worked as critics. People like Oscar Wilde, TS Eliot, nowadays Salman Rushdie, etc.
It boils down to having a coherent vision of art and being able to apply that. You can do that in practice or in criticism, the latter gives you the opportunity to thematize this vision, to offer it for discussion.

Most think that the two should remain separate. In this sense the new Lars von Trier picture "Dogville" (as indeed all of LvT's pictures) offers an alternative view. Here the picture and the critique of pictures as an art form is always copresent.

i don't like critics who show off

[marcel]

Originally posted by invisibleplanet
what really pisses me off about ANY kind of art/music/fashion critique is that vulgar negativitst, whereby the writer doesn't have anything good to say about the subject, and wrote the article with the intent of passing on their negative opinion to the reader... i personally don't see the point of this, and find it rather crude.

it depends on how its been said but generally i also go for bad critics. someone has to say the truth, even if its bad. who wants a world there the people only say what they like and hide what they dont like/ dont think of being good?me not

[Espresso Fetish]

Has anyone mentioned the part in "History of the world" when the artist meets the critic?

Do tell?

[Espresso Fetish]

Originally posted by circuit_freak
Do tell?

It is when the first artist met the first critic.
The artist does the first wall painting and then at the showing the critic (who is fat, and very unitractive) walks up to the wall painting and then proceeds to piss all over it