What is the whole point of art criticism

Result #1

What is the whole point of art criticism? Well, to give it some leeway, there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that many of these paintings are based on found objects, photographs, and film. (Indeed, many of these pictures have a nostalgic, nostalgic feel, as if they were made in the aftermath of a series of Hollywood explosions.) In many of the paintings, the waxy, pasty surface of the film has been sprinkled over the bright, flat, colorful surface of the canvas, as if the surface of the film were in some way revealing. These layers of film are enough to suggest the presence of a movie screen, yet they are not only active agents but also give the paintings an almost sculptural, organic quality. The film is not merely an element of the surface but has become a sort of corpse of the surface, as though some unseen image of the films original, unknown and almost unrecognizable, had been strung through the film and the filmic surface had become a kind of floating corpse.The use of found objects such as a plastic chair, a plastic bag, and a Styrofoam cup in this show and the way that the objects are juxtaposed with the filmic surface speak directly to the passage of time in which we live, but they also evoke the passage of time in which the filmic surface is also seen, for it is this very passage of time that the exhibition investigates. Yet, in the end, what is at stake is not so much the passage of time as that of experience itself: the passage from filmic to real-life space, from the fleeting to the eternal.In this way, the works are the logical extension of the filmic surface. They are also an attempt to reclaim the residue of a filmic existence from the simulacrum of the object. And they are also, in a sense, paintings: paintings made of found objects, a filmic surface.

Result #2

What is the whole point of art criticism? Isnt it a meaningless exercise in which you can be criticized for thinking that art is the last word on anything? Art criticism is not the end of art criticism; it is only a provisional and temporary transition. We do not know how this transition will be conducted, but one can certainly feel that some decisions will be more fruitful than others.Art criticism is the ultimate craven pretense, and it is no longer the job of art to perform its magic. It is the art critic who preaches to the converted, and the conversion is a largely ceremonial one. The arts are not the domain of the artist, but are instead the domain of his or her audience. Art criticism is a charade, and the arts, in the end, are the domain of the public. In the realm of art, all art is public and thus inherently indifferent to the domain of art. Art criticism is merely the charade, and art criticism is a charade. Art criticism is not the domain of the artist, but is instead the domain of the public. And in this charade, the artist is the critic. There is no way to argue against the charade, so I will not. The charade is the charade.Art criticism is not the domain of the artist, but is instead the domain of the public. Art criticism is not the domain of the public, but is instead the domain of his or her audience. And in this charade, the artist is the critic. There is no way to argue against the charade, so I will not. The charade is the charade.The charade is the charade.Its a charade that the art critic preaches to the converted, and the conversion is a largely ceremonial one. The arts are not the domain of the artist, but are instead the domain of his or her audience. Art criticism is a charade, and art criticism, in the end, is the domain of the public.

Result #3

? It is an exercise in trite and condescending tongue-in-cheek. This is not criticism. But there is always the risk that it becomes a guise to be used to obscure or disguise the real issue. As the paintings attest, one is confronted by an incipient subjectivity, an impression of one on the other. A more traditional art criticism might look at the paintings as if they were photographs; but here the painter appears as if he were the photographer who took the pictures, and here the paintings are the photographs. This is not art criticism, and it is an esthetic issue that the painter, if he wishes to remain detached, must ignore.

Result #4

What is the whole point of art criticism, asks Chaim Levy in the catalogue accompanying this exhibition. In light of the fact that the first wave of critical art criticism was essentially a reaction against Modernism, one might say, though, that reaction is now the determining factor for the art world. Criticism of modern art, then, is a response to Modernism, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. One wonders whether the new critical art will not become a question of the self-reflexivity of the viewer, as well as a reflection on his or her position in the modern world. This is, in a sense, a response to the new world of the postmodern, but it also has the condition of a self-reflexive attitude, and the mirroring of self-reflexivity as such will always be an inherently subjective response.Criticism of modern art is a response to Modernism, but also to another self-reflexive attitude. Criticism of modern art is a reaction to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. Criticism of modern art is a response to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. Criticism of modern art is a reaction to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. Criticism of modern art is a reaction to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. Criticism of modern art is a reaction to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project. Criticism of modern art is a reaction to the new world, and since Modernism has long since faded, this is a very long-term project.

Result #5

? Well, its never the same. And that is what the critic must do when faced with an exhibition of works by two artists whose intimate collaboration—as the catalogues text explains—involves the audience rather than the artist.The shows title, How Do I Know? Art and Life, is taken from a question in a 1977 letter by Jacques Lacan. Lacan argued that art and life, for Lacan, were closely allied. But where Lacan was concerned, it seems that the works in How Do I Know? are not evidence of the artists own existence, but rather evidence of the ways in which the worlds art and life have moved in recent years. The question, How do I know? implies a similar concern with the lives of artworks and of art-world events. These works and events are all but absent from the exhibition. The only person who can be considered an artist in the sense that he could be called an artist in the sense that Lacan thought of art as a continual process of change and communication between the artist and the public.Is it possible to say that the artworks on display are a testimony to life? Or are they signs of it? To my mind, it is Lacan who has made the best use of this situation. Not to mention the fact that the show comes from a gallery that can hardly do anything about the situation, and that this is an unforced collaboration. The gallery is the one institution that has come up with the boldest intentions to present such a grand exhibition. Unfortunately, they are all but empty.