Since I am trying to be an artist in retirement, I found this helpful... An artist should want to talk about the work if there is any passion behind it.
I rarely invite people in for studio visits. I had one similar to yours about five years ago,. from a well known NYC artist whose name I am dying to reveal, but won't. She was unbearably cruel.
It seems to me based on anecdotal evidence that it's the artists--seldom curators or dealers--who tend to be the nastiest. But there are always exceptions!
"Arrangement in Gray and Gray" - I sorta like that one too! Would love to see the actual canvas. The other images you shared were intriguing as well. I agree with most said in comments. Critiques are about the artist (or student) and their touch of the hand - not the person giving the critique. If helpful, apply. If not, ignore. So many artists and student artists are looking for encouragement, not judgement. I know what I "like" and what I don't. But what's that got to do with it? Unless I'm planning to buy the work to have it in my life, no need for "like and don't like". Your studio visitor was unbelievably rude and I would judge harmful. I've had experiences with both helpful and harmful. Bless them that can and teach!
My biggest recommendation is for everyone to choose carefully whose input to take to heart. Bullying negativity is well worth ignoring. So is indiscriminate praise. I have had far too many students in my workshops who had a horrible put down from an art instructor. Half my job is getting them past it before I can teach them anything else. No matter how dreadful I think the work in front of me is, I find something to compliment and then offer friendly suggestion as to something they could do to make it better. Before the workshop begins I ask each individual what they want to get out of their time with me and proceed accordingly.
I taught painting and drawing for years at a community college and many of my students were very vulnerable. My own rules for critics was to first say 3 positive comments followed by constructive suggestions. Most of my students were not going to go forward as art majors but I wanted them to love art. Research projects always included 50% women!
I appreciate your telling of this horrid experience. As you probably know, I teach at Pratt and give critiques on a regular basis. The reason for a critique is so the student can improve. If the student is attacked and/or not given an explanation as to why their work is good or bad, then it's not a critique. The student shuts down and it's a waste of time. Regardless as to whether of not you decided to continue to make art, there is no good reason for being a jerk. So sorry you had to go through this.
Missed you are the gallery today. Liked seeing the work, wanted one of the little paintings of light on the water, but priced a bit more than I felt ready to spend. that "critique" you described at your place, of your work was inappropriately harsh, no excuses.
I have learned that perservering as an artist has meant learning to take the "bad" times, the blundering critics, the endless rejections and, worst of all (for me) an acute sense of invisibility. The rebound gets shorter and quicker and the sense of self stronger and unmoveable . . . and there is the work . . .
Yes, I know. I don't think I'm really cut out for art making, though it often made me terrifically happy. Tenacity is a big part of the process. So are courage and a thick hide.
omg. Ann! That sounds like a primer on how NOT to orchestrate a critique. After years of teaching and after the earlier years in grad school with way too many of what I termed ‘marine style’ crits, as a teacher it became obvious try and leave one’s own ego at bay.
If the critique is to help someone see what they’re doing ( and I think it is), the first thing is to ask the artist questions- what they were looking for, what their intention was, etc. Sorry to go on so long here, but your description must have hit a chord in me from long, long ago.
I think there are two ways artist/teachers go. One is the judgement route. You already know what that is. The other is to help the "critee" or student become the artist they want to be. That takes a discussion, and commitment. It doesn't mean the "critter" will like the work any more than they do, but it does mean you'll have a better idea about their biases and they'll hopefully have some idea of where you want to go. I like to think that in all but a few cases I was the latter in my 27 years of teaching at NMSU.
I taught for a number of years. When I conducted group crtiques, I asked for thoughts, feelings and observations. That seemed to work well for constuctuve feed back.
Certainly not helpful or constructive. And I love the blue green geometric she turned down. Katrina was a bad hurricane.
Since I am trying to be an artist in retirement, I found this helpful... An artist should want to talk about the work if there is any passion behind it.
Just be careful about whom you turn to for advice and encouragement!
not sure what happened to the "comment"., only half finished. I think I wanted to say that it was simply inappropriate.
I rarely invite people in for studio visits. I had one similar to yours about five years ago,. from a well known NYC artist whose name I am dying to reveal, but won't. She was unbearably cruel.
It seems to me based on anecdotal evidence that it's the artists--seldom curators or dealers--who tend to be the nastiest. But there are always exceptions!
"Arrangement in Gray and Gray" - I sorta like that one too! Would love to see the actual canvas. The other images you shared were intriguing as well. I agree with most said in comments. Critiques are about the artist (or student) and their touch of the hand - not the person giving the critique. If helpful, apply. If not, ignore. So many artists and student artists are looking for encouragement, not judgement. I know what I "like" and what I don't. But what's that got to do with it? Unless I'm planning to buy the work to have it in my life, no need for "like and don't like". Your studio visitor was unbelievably rude and I would judge harmful. I've had experiences with both helpful and harmful. Bless them that can and teach!
My biggest recommendation is for everyone to choose carefully whose input to take to heart. Bullying negativity is well worth ignoring. So is indiscriminate praise. I have had far too many students in my workshops who had a horrible put down from an art instructor. Half my job is getting them past it before I can teach them anything else. No matter how dreadful I think the work in front of me is, I find something to compliment and then offer friendly suggestion as to something they could do to make it better. Before the workshop begins I ask each individual what they want to get out of their time with me and proceed accordingly.
You are a gem!
I taught painting and drawing for years at a community college and many of my students were very vulnerable. My own rules for critics was to first say 3 positive comments followed by constructive suggestions. Most of my students were not going to go forward as art majors but I wanted them to love art. Research projects always included 50% women!
Hi Ann.
I appreciate your telling of this horrid experience. As you probably know, I teach at Pratt and give critiques on a regular basis. The reason for a critique is so the student can improve. If the student is attacked and/or not given an explanation as to why their work is good or bad, then it's not a critique. The student shuts down and it's a waste of time. Regardless as to whether of not you decided to continue to make art, there is no good reason for being a jerk. So sorry you had to go through this.
There is seldom a good reason for being a jerk.
You are so right
Missed you are the gallery today. Liked seeing the work, wanted one of the little paintings of light on the water, but priced a bit more than I felt ready to spend. that "critique" you described at your place, of your work was inappropriately harsh, no excuses.
Sorry I missed you....we'll get together another time!
Yes, Ann, So much goes by , so fast. Hope to check in again soon .
Ann, I remember when that visitor came to your place and how her response felt. She is simply
Hello Ann - So nice to be reading you again.
I have learned that perservering as an artist has meant learning to take the "bad" times, the blundering critics, the endless rejections and, worst of all (for me) an acute sense of invisibility. The rebound gets shorter and quicker and the sense of self stronger and unmoveable . . . and there is the work . . .
Yes, I know. I don't think I'm really cut out for art making, though it often made me terrifically happy. Tenacity is a big part of the process. So are courage and a thick hide.
omg. Ann! That sounds like a primer on how NOT to orchestrate a critique. After years of teaching and after the earlier years in grad school with way too many of what I termed ‘marine style’ crits, as a teacher it became obvious try and leave one’s own ego at bay.
If the critique is to help someone see what they’re doing ( and I think it is), the first thing is to ask the artist questions- what they were looking for, what their intention was, etc. Sorry to go on so long here, but your description must have hit a chord in me from long, long ago.
I think there are two ways artist/teachers go. One is the judgement route. You already know what that is. The other is to help the "critee" or student become the artist they want to be. That takes a discussion, and commitment. It doesn't mean the "critter" will like the work any more than they do, but it does mean you'll have a better idea about their biases and they'll hopefully have some idea of where you want to go. I like to think that in all but a few cases I was the latter in my 27 years of teaching at NMSU.
I'm so glad I studied art history as an undergrad and graduate student. No one ever get reamed so viciously, as far as I can recall.
I taught for a number of years. When I conducted group crtiques, I asked for thoughts, feelings and observations. That seemed to work well for constuctuve feed back.