Symbiosis of critic and artist
The critic and the artist, the observer and the quantum particle.
I'm a lot like a critic. I know I have powerful creative potential, but I often ignore it because I know that it would take a lot of work to bring it to life and I'm a lazy person. I tell myself with some justification that creation and observation are two necessary halves of the same whole, that I enjoy the appreciation of other people's creative work and this is a necessary and worthy contribution to the ecology of art. This is all true of course, or I wouldn't believe it.
But the critic is fooling himself, aided and abetted by his laziness. The critic judges art based on an internal vision of perfection in the concept being observed. He sees how it differs from his internal vision of perfection and marks it on the scale accordingly. But if the critic brought his vision to life, he would no longer be a critic, but a creator.
Well, the thing is, the conclusion here, is that he should. He should bring his vision to life. The critic is a creator that hasn't bothered to blossom, who throws his energies into the objectification of other work rather than the instantiation of his own. No wonder artists prefer the company of other artists! Artists crave the criticism of those who are subject to their own in return because they know that the critic is coming from a foundation of personal vision which can be seen and manifest in the critic's own art.
One may well outlaw criticism except by peers.
I need to develop my art more. I have just realized that I haven't the right to feel that I truly appreciate the work of others unless I can contribute on an equal footing.
I'm a lot like a critic. I know I have powerful creative potential, but I often ignore it because I know that it would take a lot of work to bring it to life and I'm a lazy person. I tell myself with some justification that creation and observation are two necessary halves of the same whole, that I enjoy the appreciation of other people's creative work and this is a necessary and worthy contribution to the ecology of art. This is all true of course, or I wouldn't believe it.
But the critic is fooling himself, aided and abetted by his laziness. The critic judges art based on an internal vision of perfection in the concept being observed. He sees how it differs from his internal vision of perfection and marks it on the scale accordingly. But if the critic brought his vision to life, he would no longer be a critic, but a creator.
Well, the thing is, the conclusion here, is that he should. He should bring his vision to life. The critic is a creator that hasn't bothered to blossom, who throws his energies into the objectification of other work rather than the instantiation of his own. No wonder artists prefer the company of other artists! Artists crave the criticism of those who are subject to their own in return because they know that the critic is coming from a foundation of personal vision which can be seen and manifest in the critic's own art.
One may well outlaw criticism except by peers.
I need to develop my art more. I have just realized that I haven't the right to feel that I truly appreciate the work of others unless I can contribute on an equal footing.