Do we as artists have the right to defend our work against criticism

[the_ultimate_evil]

This spawned from a discussion that happened in class today, while in the process of discussion how we will present our final year gallery show.

The subject of criticism came up and everyone agreed that it would be expected to receive some on the night, but what caught me as strange was that I was the only one who felt it was right that we should be able to defend aspects of our work or the work as a whole against these criticisms

When I said this I got nothing but blank stares from the class. One even went on to say that once you display your work you no longer have any say in it and you should accept and agree with anything people say about your work

Now I am in no way against feedback or criticism on an artist work in fact I encourage and welcome it, but I do feel that if an artist feels strongly about an aspect of his work or against what the viewer is saying then they have to right to defend the work

Am I the only one who feels this way or am I just nuts

 

[KAD]

This spawned from a discussion that happened in class today, while in the process of discussion how we will present our final year gallery show.

The subject of criticism came up and everyone agreed that it would be expected to receive some on the night, but what caught me as strange was that I was the only one who felt it was right that we should be able to defend aspects of our work or the work as a whole against these criticisms

When I said this I got nothing but blank stares from the class. One even went on to say that once you display your work you no longer have any say in it and you should accept and agree with anything people say about your work

Now I am in no way against feedback or criticism on an artist work in fact I encourage and welcome it, but I do feel that if an artist feels strongly about an aspect of his work or against what the viewer is saying then they have to right to defend the work

Am I the only one who feels this way or am I just nuts

I am in the middle.

If you chose a different term say explain rather than defend.

My art is what it is regardless of what others say. There is nothing to defend.

If someone expresses an idea or preference over a choice I have made, I will listen and if I feel my idea is still valid I will express why I made the choice I did and leave it at that.

 

[crazy monkey]

Mamoru Oshii is a well-known japanese filmmaker. He made an insightful statement about movies and, by extension, art in general.

"People say that they like movies," he said. "What they really mean is, they like movies that they have already seen."

In other words, people open their eyes to art more so than their minds. They experience art as filtered through their prejudices, preferences and personalities. They have a picture in their head of what good art is before they ever see yours, and they often compare it to that picture instead of judging it based on its own merit.

Before you cry foul, understand that this process began with the first cave drawings and has repeated itself with every audience until now. Art historians like to tell you that art both shapes and reflects culture. That's one way of seeing things, I suppose. Really, people shape culture. The decisions we make as individuals act collectively to push and prod and knead the culture we live in and reshape it every day. (If that weren't true, advertising firms wouldn't be paid billions of dollars to try and influence those decisions and homegenize them into something more predictable.)

So where does that leave you? Should you now scramble to assess and catalog the tastes of your target audience and jigsaw your art to fit their picture? No. Most artists create for the simple sake of creating something new. For some it is a therapautic pastime. Others are spurred on by a burning need to let out the visions in their head. There are also a small amount that feel responsible to assert their genius on the world, determined to try and change its mind. The common denominator is that the desire to make art often comes naturally to the artist (even if the finer points of the craft do not.)

No matter what the reasons or motivations, though, artists crave an audience. Then we're back to the same scenario: people comparing your art to their own opinions and deciding to support your vision or not. That decision, made on an individual level, works collectively to determine whether your art shapes the culture. If it does, art historians look back on your work as influencial in changing the world. The reality is that the world saw your art and decided to let it change them. See how that works?

What, then, is there to defend? Your art is yours. You release to the world. People decide to like it or not. That process is unavoidable (unless you hang your stuff in a closet.) If the majority see your product as 'Good Art,' then congragulations! You are blessed with immortality. If not, then what was the point of making it? That's for you to answer. If your talent comes naturally and your motivation is personal fulfillment, then it shouldn't matter. Let people shape the culture. You worry about refining your skill until your work is the best that you can make it. Your classmate felt that you should accept and agree with the opinions of your audience. I say, Accept - yes; agree - not neccessarily.

Bottom line: art needs no defense. It stands alone, waiting for the world to judge it. Bristling against criticism isn't defending your art, it's defending your ego.

-- END!

 

[StrainedEyes]

This spawned from a discussion that happened in class today, while in the process of discussion how we will present our final year gallery show.

The subject of criticism came up and everyone agreed that it would be expected to receive some on the night, but what caught me as strange was that I was the only one who felt it was right that we should be able to defend aspects of our work or the work as a whole against these criticisms

When I said this I got nothing but blank stares from the class. One even went on to say that once you display your work you no longer have any say in it and you should accept and agree with anything people say about your work

Now I am in no way against feedback or criticism on an artist work in fact I encourage and welcome it, but I do feel that if an artist feels strongly about an aspect of his work or against what the viewer is saying then they have to right to defend the work

Am I the only one who feels this way or am I just nuts

All artists feel that way, but it's the way of things. You are not supposed to defend or explain your work, Art is a very interactive medium. It's as much the viewers as it is yours. So you have no right to battle someone's opinion on it.

Frankly, if your work needs explanation, it's not doing it's job.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

i'd like to throw out something, when i used the term defend i in no way meant it as a case of stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA NOT LISTENING

what i meant was you had the right to put forwards the views and ideas that lead you to the final piece,you still listen to others views and there opinions and take from them

what made me use the term defend(though i agree wrongly) was the idea put forward by some of my class that an artist is to do nothing but sit there smile at very thing that is said about his/her work no matter if complementary, constructive or just plain rude and ignorant, and say " thank you, your 100% right and i agree totally"

 

[Fried Gold]

Depends on whether someone tells you that it's crap or tells you why it's crap.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Mamoru Oshii is a well-known japanese filmmaker. He made an insightful statement about movies and, by extension, art in general.

"People say that they like movies," he said. "What they really mean is, they like movies that they have already seen."

In other words, people open their eyes to art more so than their minds. They experience art as filtered through their prejudices, preferences and personalities. They have a picture in their head of what good art is before they ever see yours, and they often compare it to that picture instead of judging it based on its own merit.

Before you cry foul, understand that this process began with the first cave drawings and has repeated itself with every audience until now. Art historians like to tell you that art both shapes and reflects culture. That's one way of seeing things, I suppose. Really, people shape culture. The decisions we make as individuals act collectively to push and prod and knead the culture we live in and reshape it every day. (If that weren't true, advertising firms wouldn't be paid billions of dollars to try and influence those decisions and homegenize them into something more predictable.)

So where does that leave you? Should you now scramble to assess and catalog the tastes of your target audience and jigsaw your art to fit their picture? No. Most artists create for the simple sake of creating something new. For some it is a therapautic pastime. Others are spurred on by a burning need to let out the visions in their head. There are also a small amount that feel responsible to assert their genius on the world, determined to try and change its mind. The common denominator is that the desire to make art often comes naturally to the artist (even if the finer points of the craft do not.)

No matter what the reasons or motivations, though, artists crave an audience. Then we're back to the same scenario: people comparing your art to their own opinions and deciding to support your vision or not. That decision, made on an individual level, works collectively to determine whether your art shapes the culture. If it does, art historians look back on your work as influencial in changing the world. The reality is that the world saw your art and decided to let it change them. See how that works?

What, then, is there to defend? Your art is yours. You release to the world. People decide to like it or not. That process is unavoidable (unless you hang your stuff in a closet.) If the majority see your product as 'Good Art,' then congragulations! You are blessed with immortality. If not, then what was the point of making it? That's for you to answer. If your talent comes naturally and your motivation is personal fulfillment, then it shouldn't matter. Let people shape the culture. You worry about refining your skill until your work is the best that you can make it. Your classmate felt that you should accept and agree with the opinions of your audience. I say, Accept - yes; agree - not neccessarily.

Bottom line: art needs no defense. It stands alone, waiting for the world to judge it. Bristling against criticism isn't defending your art, it's defending your ego.

-- END!

Beautiful post

 

[04nbod]

you can only explain what you are going for and they either see that or not. its like modern art- it represents something but it isolates itself from a viewer and its hard to 'get'. its my philosophy that art is just as much for the viewer as it is for you and it should be accessible. if they know what they are looking at they can take it or leave it.

 

[jrs2345]

You absolutely have the right to defend your work, period.

J

 

[spidey-dude]

Bottom line: art needs no defense. It stands alone, waiting for the world to judge it. Bristling against criticism isn't defending your art, it's defending your ego.

I disagree SO much with what you say here!!! some of the greatest masterpeices often need explaining, also it depends ont he itelect of the veiwer

however yes as an artist I think that sometimes it is nessecary to defend (explain is a better term) your work when criticised, most veiwers havnt studied fine art and quite often their criticisms will be purely athestically based, i.e "why didnt you used red instead..." and may need to be told the reasoning behind not only why you did it the peices meaning as a whole, remember also that a peice of art can have multiple meanings some more obvious than others, and once one has been deciphered by a veiwer than they often stop looking for any more, I have often had to defend/explain paintings at some of my exhibitons, and quite often after I have said my peice I will be met with a "oh yes I understand" or "oh I see that now", of course youll still be met with scrunched up faces of people who think they are right. heck a lot of the time people would ask me WHY ive used a certain colour or style, of course occasionaly my answer has been "to make it more athsetically pleasing"

phew didn't think I was gonna type that much, but I do have strong feelings on the topic

oh and sorry for any spelling grammar mistakes I havnt had time to double check this (i know its one long sentance but I didnt expect it to be that long)

 

[Machx72]

I have to defend all the time, especially against people who know ZIPPY about proportions [although there are many instances where the criticism has been correct, cuz I'll get lazy toward the end of my drawing and not measure correctly].

I say, so long as you have proper knowledge and a good defense, use it. If it's wrong, however, be prepared to be slammed even harder.

 

[clintrussell]

I never defend. If I put "CnC appreciated" why should I start defending when people are trying to help me to improve.

 

[spidey-dude]

my post reffered more to fine art paintings than illustrations, which I think soemtimes has deeper reasons behind why something looks the way it does, or even why its a certain colour style etc.

 

[crazy monkey]

I disagree SO much with what you say here!!! some of the greatest masterpeices often need explaining, also it depends ont he itelect of the veiwer

however yes as an artist I think that sometimes it is nessecary to defend (explain is a better term) your work when criticised, most veiwers havnt studied fine art and quite often their criticisms will be purely athestically based, i.e "why didnt you used red instead..." and may need to be told the reasoning behind not only why you did it the peices meaning as a whole, remember also that a peice of art can have multiple meanings some more obvious than others, and once one has been deciphered by a veiwer than they often stop looking for any more, I have often had to defend/explain paintings at some of my exhibitons, and quite often after I have said my peice I will be met with a "oh yes I understand" or "oh I see that now", of course youll still be met with scrunched up faces of people who think they are right. heck a lot of the time people would ask me WHY ive used a certain colour or style, of course occasionaly my answer has been "to make it more athsetically pleasing"

phew didn't think I was gonna type that much, but I do have strong feelings on the topic

oh and sorry for any spelling grammar mistakes I havnt had time to double check this (i know its one long sentance but I didnt expect it to be that long)

Yes, someone's always ready to explain the great masterpieces. Unfortunately, the masters who created them aren't the ones doing the explaining. These explainations are really just the opinions of people who appreciate art. According to your arguments, were those masters alive now, their defense of their work would supercede those opinions. So, why are they neccessary at all? Sure, they can be interesting. But certainly art can be loved and understood without some 'expert's' insight.

Art will find its own audience naturally. If those people who view your work don't understand it, then it probably isn't for them. That's not a crime.

Of course, you don't want to come off as a snoot, and answering a legitimate question can help someone see your art through your eyes. But is that neccesarily what you want? For example, I love DVD commentary. However, some directors refuse to record them, because they don't want the viewer to be influenced by what they, the filmmaker, thinks. They're confident that their art can stand on its own. A little frustrating for me, but a valid point.

Another good reason to not be too quick to defend art is that, sometimes, it stinks. Hey, it happens. We all have stuff from years past that we look at now and think, What was I thinking? So if one's art never seems to find an appreciative audience, then it might be time to reexamine the methods used.

For example, you referenced the use of color. Colors are usually chosed to exude a certain mood. They're often the first thing that someone notices in any peice of visual art. Therefore, they're meant to hit the viewer hard and fast (even if the hues are soft and subtle) and thereby instantly surround them in the desired atmosphere to drink in the other details.

If none of that happens, then it means one of two things: 1. They aren't your target audience, or 2. despite your personal tastes, you've chosen those colors poorly. By not dogmatically defending your viewpoint, you can differenciate between the two and use feedback to your advantage. Just let the viewer decide for themselves whether your art is good or not. They're going to anyway, explainations or not. Besides, that's part of the enjoyment of appreciating art. You wouldn't want to rob anyone of that.

-- END!

 

[Krimasen]

I've always thought of art as being completely subjective in that no matter what you draw, someone in the world will like it. There will always be people that will cut anything you do to shreds, that's nothing new or unexpected, but artists can always take heart in the fact that there are ppl out there who will like what they've done and will support their various visions.