tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-138077166633858662.post5619245023073839419..comments2023-01-15T00:13:43.600-08:00Comments on The Split End: Interviews and ReviewsLily Janiakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03947272608435709440noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-138077166633858662.post-28963542582253583102012-07-08T14:08:04.689-07:002012-07-08T14:08:04.689-07:00Lily,
Must you always sound certain in your SF W...Lily, <br /><br />Must you always sound certain in your SF Weekly reviews? A good open question can be infinitely more stimulating than even a well-put answer's finality. If a work of art brings up multiple, especially conflicting, perspectives within a reviewer's experience of it, that in itself is a legitimate response and something well worth talking about. This business of finality of assessment, by which reviewers sometimes declare what a work of art "is," as if the impact of an artwork were an objective and not subjective matter, has always seemed to me rather antithetical to art, which at least in part exists to inspire and open up possibilities, not to reduce or limit them.<br /><br />By "forceful" or "vigorous" verses "caustic" or "cutting" I mean making a comment with an engaged, articulate, well considered, strong point of view, hopefully also with the intent to converse, as opposed to anything involving either sarcasm, careless flippancy, meanness, or declarations not intended for debate but for the endgame-spectacle of the verbal cutting-down itself. The latter turns a review into a gossip column, which is another endeavor. <br /><br />Speaking not just as an artist but also as someone who sometimes myself contributes to print and online magazines, my own feeling is that if I couldn't also say what I wrote to a person's face, I probably shouldn't write it that way either. It's entirely possible to disagree, debate, even argue, with vigor and force and without ever stooping to sarcasm or meanness.<br /><br />People have walked up to me even right after a show of mine and spoken to things they did NOT like about it in a way that was fair and considered, and I take what these people say in and consider it myself. Same goes for what such people may write. Others walk up and say, or scuttle away and write, impulsive, sarcastic, flippant things, sometimes making a point of "clever" turns of phrase, and to be frank I dismiss these people as self-serving. <br /><br />I'm very, very interested in a conversation with someone, preferably in person but also in print. That's why I make art and also why I go to see it: to participate in a conversation. I'm not interested in anyone monologuing at me and expecting me to remain silent when they've opted to render their monologue caustically. That's selfish of them, and in a civil society such people should be taken to task. The spectacle of a caustic comment can indeed be entertaining, especially when written with the wit of Shaw. But Shaw's wit is rare. It's not incidental that Shaw was also an artist himself, with practical experience with the broad subject of what he critiqued. Harold Clurman was likewise an artist, but more so one of the great American critics who never wrote caustically, but always critically. His review of STREETCAR is masterful, truly critical, and never caustic.<br /><br />So now I'm at risk of monologuing myself. Hopefully vigorously, at least, and in the service of conversation for certain. Thanks for the e-conversation, Lily.<br /><br />Mark JMark Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05667069276359200919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-138077166633858662.post-48720975631248249832012-07-05T21:09:38.373-07:002012-07-05T21:09:38.373-07:00Mark,
Thanks for reading and for this great respo...Mark,<br /><br />Thanks for reading and for this great response. Sometimes I think of this blog as a second face. In my articles for the Weekly, I have to sound as certain as everyone else; here, I can turn around and indulge all the qualms that lie beneath the facade!<br /><br />Sometime, I'd love to see examples of what you mean by "forceful" vs. "caustic." Say there are two negative reviews - what makes one vigorous and the other cutting? I have my own sense of what these terms mean, but I think sometimes in discussing criticism folks bandy them about without being precise.<br /><br />That being said, I think there is a place for caustic reviews, if only because I enjoy reading them and because much great criticism - Shaw, Tynan, etc. - is caustic. I guess that just means Shaw and Tynan probably couldn't have it both ways and also have artist amigos. <br /><br />Speaking of being precise, I should have been more specific in discussing reviewing art vs. reviewing artists. For me what that means is that criticism is not a review of how nice a person is or a testament to our friendship. I haven't yet found the right balance of how to avoid that trap while also not being cold and savage. Maybe I will if I live as long as Shaw did.Lily Janiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03947272608435709440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-138077166633858662.post-60425092308226612742012-07-03T11:00:04.931-07:002012-07-03T11:00:04.931-07:00Lily, what has me checking in with your blog from ...Lily, what has me checking in with your blog from time to time is exactly what you do here, which is rare for critics: putting out into the world an ongoing critical investigation of yourself and your own work. I find it legitimately refreshing that as a critic you share with us your own critical journey, rather than maintaining the stance of absolute certainty that so many reviewers seem to do by default.<br /><br />In these regards, if by "trenchant" you mean its use as "forceful, effective, and vigorous," then I would agree this is something to strive for as your circle of artist colleagues continues to grow. If you at all mean "trenchant" in its use as "caustic" or "cutting," which I imagine you don't despite your reference to "venom," then I would suggest that, no, such trenchancy is not a sign of either maturity or professionalism in a critic who counts artists among her colleagues, acquaintances, or friends.<br /><br />In any case, I'd also add that seeing artists as human beings, and recognizing that their art is in fact NOT separate from either them, their humanity, or humanity in general, but rather that they are inextricably linked, is a point of view that makes a fine example of professionalism and maturity in any critic, or artist -- despite the NY Times' separatist policies on these matters. Critics who maintain that they review only the art and not the artist are living a lie. No artist would ever see it this way, of course. I've never gotten the sense that the general readership see it this way either. It's a fallacy that critics sometimes uphold in order to help themselves deal with the inherently personal nature of what they write about not just art but people, and for people -- critics likewise being people themselves, which some artists also wrongfully forget.<br /><br />Thanks for your ongoing, and truly critical, work.<br /><br />Mark JMark Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05667069276359200919noreply@blogger.com