What is the whole point of art criticism

Result #1

, in other words, the bottom line of the old question of the relevance of an artwork to the world of art? Is it simply the conclusion of an artistic career, or does it also serve as a means of escape from the anxiety of influence? In this show, for instance, the work of Salomés, with whose art history he shares a certain affinity, is expressed in an almost religious way. The Argentinean artist has been active in international art for years, but his art does not focus exclusively on himself. At the same time, his works are about the world. They take on an aspect of activism that is part of the creative process. One piece, for instance, was called Persistent Intentional Action, 2011, and, in addition to the gallery space, there were posters of the artists hand, which were found among the plaster.In the last two decades, Argentinas have witnessed an explosion of artistic activity, bringing together many different kinds of media, from painting, sculpture, music, and performance. Salomés has used his art in such diverse ways that the work he has produced now feels like an archeological expedition: It is rooted in memory and history, and thus simultaneously human and nonhuman. It is also about the world, as a person and an artist, but also about the time and place of art. The work is about the world as an exhibition, and about the time and place of art, which is not merely the time and place of the museum but also the time and place of the individual.

Result #2

, wrote Goethe, if not to paint a beautiful picture. Mochetti uses the same kind of irony to criticize the attempt to represent his photographs in words. I think that one can be right about a lot of things, but only when the point is clear. In the end, we are left with a series of images, which, whether they are painted or in some way inscribed, are still pictures. Mochetti has created a place of reflection and a kind of body of work that, in the end, can be read as a critique of painting.

Result #3

? Or, to be more precise, how does it help us? It helps, as Wittgenstein said, by keeping us from being bored with art. It helps, too, by having a definition of art that is both rigorous and free. To critique art as art is to propose the challenge to art as art. Criticism is also to suggest that art is not merely the art of others but the art of the community as well. Criticism is to be understood as both a critique of the society it criticizes and a critique of the arts itself. It is a critique that is accepted as such without any critical resistance to be found.

Result #4

What is the whole point of art criticism? We see that there is no point in art criticism, because the artist does not really exist. We are not even made aware that the art world is a single, omnipotent, dominant, over-determined, controlling force. We see that art criticism is a vital activity. The critic is, in fact, an organ of exchange, a forum for the expression of a critical view. That is why the current influx of artists is such a shock to the art world. What is not so surprising is that the art world is not much interested in art criticism, either. The new art worlds are the most important art world we have ever known. Who knows what would happen if they actually became interested? The artist has to remain untouched. He is not the only one. Another problem is that there are few galleries that will take the risk of acquiring an entire gallery. The new art worlds are the only possible possible place for their existence. That is why many artists would prefer to work in a place where they are already too big to be called art.There are many artists working in the art worlds who have come to the point of accepting the fact that art criticism is no longer possible. This situation is not unusual. It is a part of art history that can be traced from Marcel Duchamp to Andy Warhol. The importance of Duchamp as an artist and as an artist in art has been established by way of his paintings, his works, his public pronouncements. The importance of Warhol as an artist, however, is more difficult to judge. His work has never been art criticism; it has always been about art, and the art world. In other words, Warhol has always been an artist who worked with art criticism. He never accepted the role of the artist as critic, or as an investigator, or as an organizer. He never had the luxury of being able to do the work of art criticism. He didnt have the luxury of art criticism.

Result #5

? What makes it more relevant than other media, the word, or the image?—Sonia Dias-Villas-Pitrus