by Kevin Freitas



Gabriel Cornelius von Max - "Monkeys as Judges of Art" 1889


In last week's blog update, I published a quote from John Canaday. Born in Fort Scott Kansas in 1907, he later became the embattled art critic for the New York Times some fifty-two years later. Here is the quote:

"Critics should not know artists and artists should not know critics. But since we can't make a law against such fraternization, a critic's obligation is to make certain that what he writes (and talks) is after-the-fact judgment on what the artist creates. And the artist should create without thinking of the critic or of his, the artist's, position on a graph."

I chose this quote as a means of codifying my thoughts about several recent conversations I've had with fellow colleagues and artists. Canaday asks for I believe, a larger stake on the part of the artist to make work that is relevent - emphasis on the word create - and less about an artist's statue or social position within the art community. A simple concept no doubt and one that most artists would argue they are already employing. It is often difficult to home in on the art being made in San Diego as we are easily distracted by the beautiful weather, hampered by the lack of exhibition venues, and the non-existant competition from our peers. It's a Darwin thing, you wouldn't understand. Nonetheless, art that is made here generally stays here preventing it from being rightfully exported beyond our borders, held in place by some invisible and powerful sucking machine. Pull the plug I say and let's get back to making, thinking, and talking about art.

For another perspective on Canaday's quote, fellow Art as Authority contributor Marilyn Mitchell, had this to say:

"Artists are art critics, even if they deny their status as such. They must turn a critical eye to their creations, if only for a view to know when to finish a piece. Every artist (other than those creating outside of any public society) is inherently commenting on all the work they have seen with each piece they make. By making work of a particular type, they must recognize it is viewed with the cumulative collective awareness of all such previous pieces by the informed art viewer. Artists may not necessarily think about creating works with a viewer in mind, yet, the viewer still exists. Just as one hand clapping makes a certain sound, art unseen makes a certain vibration. Art comes alive in the eyes of another. Art requires critics. Critics, therefore, require artists. One does not exist without the other. A dialogue between the two is not to be abhorred. It must be exposed for what it is; a sharing of the tightrope. Like any balancing act, though, it requires an honest appraisal of the reality of the situation. Critics that know the artist they write about must expose that fact and as Canaday correctly points out, they must remain objective to the work at hand as they view it. It is only after they have done their best to objectively evaluate the piece that they can comment from their subjective experience of it as an art work."