I wanted to just give a heads-up about a blog posting by Chloe Veltman (Sports Writers have the Edge) I found on ArtsJournal.com.
Veltman writes about an experiment conducted by the Guardian in which the paper's sports writers covered art events and the art critics covered sporting events. She comes out strongly in favor of the sports writers, though the whole enterprise gets a less-than-ringing endorsement.
It caused a little bit of deja-vu for me because I vividly recall when the Boston Phoenix played this game with its culture critics in the late 80s or early 90s, sending the movies writer to a restaurant, the art writer to do dance, the dance critic to the movies, etc. It was a really interesting moment for me as a reader (and one I pestered my editors to recreate when I starting writing for a weekly...finally getting the chance to do books and restaurants and even a theater review) because it suggested that what really mattered in criticism in these media outlets was not a deep knowledge of the specific subject at hand, but a deep knowledge of some subject coupled with really great writing skills.
Artists might bristle at this idea, but it's something I hope we'll explore a little in the class this summer: to what extent are critics writing for an audience of rreaders as opposed to an audience of insiders?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems that being engaged in what you're viewing, whether it be fine art or college basketball would be the key goal in this case. It sounds like the writers were none too thrilled, and being completely ignorant in the subject area could make for some awful reviews for anyone to read. A major point should also be brought up in this case - sports writers are not necessarily critics - they are journalists that point out the finer aspects of the game and report on what happened the night before for those that could not attend or tune in. While I would be interested in their reactions to art exhibits or concerts, if their knowledge was so lacking in the subject they were writing about that someone who usually peruses those sections found it cumbersome to read, then I'm not really sure who it would be benefiting. However, in this pluralistic art game we are all playing, isn't it a little naive to think an outsider's opinion wouldn't have some value? Artists are no longer reacting completely to art history, but are drawing from many sources. Perhaps it is time to let an outsider do some criticizing.
I think that last question is applicable for any arena of a specialized field.
Post a Comment