What is the whole point of art criticism

Result #1

when the language of painting has become so hollow? When the work of art has become so artificial, so impersonal? After all, the form of art is not so much the product of a perception of reality as it is the product of a fixation on an idea of reality—not the particularity of this idea, but the particularity of an idea of reality.

Result #2

What is the whole point of art criticism? Well, to begin with, art criticism is a form of insipid analysis, and its content, if it is to be taken seriously, is only uninteresting. All art criticism is a form of superficialism. But then, I am aware of the superficialism of the critics, and I have always understood that a given art critic is at best interested in a specific, aesthetic, or rhetorical problem, as opposed to simply making judgments about the art. The point is not merely to criticize art, but to recognize its limitations and discontinuities. In this sense, art criticism is a sort of art-as-art, and is therefore important. But, if we define art as the art of the privileged few, then art criticism becomes irrelevant. It is a form of superficialism, but a superficialism that does not serve art; it only serves itself.In an interview with art critic David Marchett, Rosenberg met with great success. He was able to question the very idea of the critical and not only analyze it. He was able to show that the art criticism of the privileged few is not concerned with art. He was able to show that art is not only a subjective, critical, and revolutionary reflection on the world, but also a superficial, nonideological analysis. He was able to show that art is not merely a vehicle for the recognition of power relations, but also a passive observer of them. In his interview, Rosenberg mentions that in the past Rosenberg himself has criticized art and has accused it of making the oppressed see the world as if they were fools. In the current exhibition, Rosenberg himself is one of the few artists who successfully uses art as a vehicle for analyzing his own political system. Rosenbergs critique is most successful when he does so in the best traditions of art criticism, in such a way that the system itself is shown to be a form of ideology and of social control.

Result #3

if it is not a means of antagonizing and deriding the art it has deemed important?—Paulo de OliveiraTranslated from Portuguese by Marcelo Trevalo.

Result #4

What is the whole point of art criticism? More to the point, is it really so bad to have an opinion? It is difficult to say, but I think this show is quite worthwhile. I will not explain why, but it does have one defect, namely that its language is pretentious. There is no doubt that criticism is a serious activity, but the common people should not be so easily lulled into it. If the public wants to have their say, they should be given the opportunity to do so. There are many possibilities of expression. The question is whether they will listen. In any event, criticism is not always easy. The best criticism is rarely the best, and it is a pleasure to see the work of many artists.The criticism presented by the Fischbach Gallery has no objectivity. Its art criticism is always subjective. The work of one critic may be good or bad. It can be misinterpreted, but it can be read. Its in no way objective. The criticism of a work of art is to be as neutral as possible. Thus, the work of the critic is a process of selection. It is not just a collection of evidence, but it is the object of criticism. The critic is interested in the object of the work, but not in its meaning. The point is not that the work is good or bad. It is that the critic is interested in the piece. This is what separates the good and bad criticism.The Fischbach show consists of the works of fifty-two artists. The selection includes works by Paul McCarthy, Jennifer Bartlett, Arthur Okamura, Richard Artschwager, Brad Davis, Jörg Immendorf, Alan Saret, Barbara Kruger, David Weinrib, Barbara Rosen, John Coplans, Norma Desmond, James Turrell, Peter Nadin, Richard Smith, and Edward Ruscha. The works are from the period 1964 to 1984, but the period covers the same period as criticism.

Result #5

What is the whole point of art criticism? If the critic is to function as an organizer of art, he must be able to answer the question What is the point of art criticism? He must be able to assess and eliminate all the possible points of view, or approaches to art that he sees as invalid or uninteresting. This is not the task of the critic. He must offer his own opinion. He must decide whether something is worthy of being discussed, whether a suggestion is worth considering. If it is, the possibility of a dialogue with his fellow critic is unavoidable. But if not, he must treat the artist as a potential detractor. His role is to balance the opposing views and make sure that the two points of view which he thinks the artist wants to express do not conflict. He must always make the right decision. This can only be done by the individual critic.The problem with art criticism is that it is a very subjective, rather than a logical, field. In the subjective realm, it is up to the critic to decide whether he wants to present his own opinion, or make an artistic statement. It is up to him to decide for himself whether he is showing a logical or an intellectual point of view. It is up to him to decide whether he is talking about an object or a concept, and whether he is presenting an object in the proper sense. That is, he is using his subjective viewpoint to present an object that is already present in a physical object or a concept, and thus a nonobjective, nonconceptual statement. He is using his subjective viewpoint to present an object which already exists as an object. But he is also using his objective point of view to present an object that is already present as a conceptual object, and thus a nonconceptual statement. He is using his objective viewpoint to present an object which already exists as an object, and thus as a conceptual object, but which is not a physical object.