Are there or should there be rules for critiquing? Do "rules" then unfortunately border on gag-orders or do planned restraints and perimeters face-off bullying? Should critics practice restraint? When do one's opinions cross boundaries of human acceptance? When do opinions become detrimental? Should anyone say anything no matter what comes out of their mouths based on the right to free speech? Shooting from the LIP. Where/when do societies/ groups/ artists/ writers/ critics-draw the line? What is destructive, false, reactionary or "harmful"?
Language? What is humane, constructive, creative, valuable, considered, thought out, truthful and productive?
Governments face these questions continually. In Canada for example: In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and the right is commonly subject to "limitations". This is because exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values.
Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle", for example in the case of pornography, or seek to limit "hate speech".
" Professor Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bollinger
Business Team Leaders face these dilemmas daily. The REAL WORLD… Perhaps some skills could be borrowed, with a grain of salt, from the Real World even if those skills don't directly apply to Art Critiques:
http://74.125.45.104/search?
q=cache:gYngkovlfEgJ:www.stabilitytech.com/documents/ConstructiveCriticism.doc+Guidelines+for+Delivering+Constructive+Criticism&hl=en& ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
How can artists and writers maximize creative solutions and potential gains by addressing the problems productively without being degrading and bullying? To process: It is necessary for artists to be Reactionary and/or Ambiguous.
Artists MUST be able to "process" and that means OUT- LOUD at times to Think-Tank problems and solutions out. Is there a way to deliver information constructively, even emotionally within an artists' community or group without this information being delivered as or interpreted as a "personal attack"?
Thinking...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very good points.
Points to consider when the recipient of criticism:
Who is critiquing the work?
What about the person's aesthetics, position, values that will help translate the comments?
(consider the source)
Do you agree with any part of the comments? If so is there anything to do to improve/alter/shift the work to reflect the agreement?
Does the criticism offer a new way of looking at something? does it challenge (even if hard to admit)?
Does it even apply, or can you dismiss it, with neutral feelings, because it is not relevant to your conclusions about your work?
Do you receive it neutrally? If not, how is it impacting.
These are some points to consider.
What is criticism? It's someone's input about how work could be better, right?
In that spirit of exchange, how might this show become better than it is?
Can we move past our fears, open up, and hear how we can expand upon our ideas, to make them even better, sharper, faster?
If you want the exchange, post away.
Some ground rules might apply:
constructive comments focusing on the work
appreciation for the work accomplished
Genuine spirit for making ideas better
...
Post a Comment