24 responses so far ↓

• 1 Wendy Boucher // Apr 10, 2008 at 11:12 pm

  I think we need honest critics across the board, visual arts, movies, theatre, literature, etc. My gut feeling is that we need conversation about art — not just announcements. I see the concern in an art market like the Tampa Bay area where galleries struggle but I think without criticism, galleries and their artists might become somehow irrelevant. And a good critic educates her or his readers. So maybe someday, a lukewarm review will actually challenge readers to go check a show out for themselves — just like I go see a movie that interests me even after a reviewer has called it a bomb. So keep up the good work.

• 2 Bill Lindeke // Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  I totally agree with you, Wendy. As long as you articulate the intentions of the artist, and attempt to describe their perspective, you can go ahead and level some criticism.

  Of course, I’m not from Tampa, but Minnesota is much the same . . .

  Just because you don’t live in New York doesn’t mean you don’t have similar struggles, make good and bad art, and don’t desire to achieve certain stands (which may or may not be met).

• 3 CEFA // Apr 11, 2008 at 6:13 am

  But it come to giving critique to the critic…
  If one critic gives a rave review…and the other is highly critical..the favorable is well researched..the critical…pure opinion…well you decide..is it a personal projection..or fact based?

  Eight artists offer ‘React,’ an eclectic show at C. Emerson Fine Arts

  By Lennie Bennett, Times Art Critic
  Published Tuesday, April 8, 2008 6:05 PM

  ST. PETERSBURG

  React.

  Such an interesting word.

  And such an interesting exhibition at C. Emerson Fine Arts that takes the word for its title. My dictionary lists six related meanings for “react” and all of them apply to the eight artists in this show in one form or another.

  In a group of collages, Eva Eun-Sil Han, a South Korean who currently lives in Belgium, responds to the cultural legacy of that northern European city. Familiar images found in religious paintings and still lifes from the Renaissance are cut and pasted into bizarre new configurations that suggest a torrent of confusing associations one would experience in an alien country.

  As a Croatian living in Florida, Daniel Mrgan also transplanted himself to a foreign country, but his simple drawings couldn’t be further stylistically from Han’s dense collages. The four in this show are wood burnings. They’re contained moments of imagination that spring from common turns of phrase, riffed and tweaked with wit. Remember the old saw about grabbing a tiger by the tail, an exhortation about taking risks? Here’s Mrgan’s take on it in Grab This: A tiger bites down on a stick, wielding scissors already fixed on its tail. Another paw stands ready with bandages. A bird covers its eyes, unable to watch the self-mutilation. Moral of the story is . . . Go for it? Don’t? Don’t know. Or all of the above.

  Lee Lee was born in Colorado and still lives there, but she has a broad world view shaped by her travels. Works from several series created after visits to Cuba, Myanmar (also known as Burma) and India, for example, address social issues she encountered in each country. Yet they are more observations of conditions than politically loaded statements. The “Torched Angels” series came from a visit to Havana graveyards. She photographed angel statues and transformed them into dense mixed media pieces on paper. A partial meltdown by a blowtorch renders them battered but still intact, like so much of the country in which the statues reside. A single, new work shows her drafting skill: a drawing of a woman Lee met in Bosnia whose son is a combat medic. The mother is surrounded by scorched paper (the artist likes singeing her surfaces a lot) and fabric fragments that give her the appearance of being in the middle of an exploding bomb. Her expression remains impassive; the violence is a future fear playing out in her mind. Gallery owner Lori Johns says that this is the first in a new series Lee will be showing later in the year.

  After a fire about three months ago that destroyed his Dunedin studio and almost his entire body of current work, Denis Gaston could be expected to produce some grim work. On the contrary, the two oil and acrylic paintings on paper have an unexpected lightness and playfulness. Sister Moon and Moon Coin Jig have a density of layers that are transparent enough to allow them all to show through, even to the drawings Gaston has painted over, giving them a physical complexity that contrasts with the simplicity of the images. He said in a telephone interview that they were in progress before the fire, on his work table.

  “For some reason, I put them in a drawer in my metal flat file that day. They were among the very few to survive.”

  So glad they did.

  C. Wade Brickhouse has the most conceptual works in the show. Small, nicely finished wood planks are mounted with rusty found objects and paired with thick, squishy-looking paper that is sometimes overlaid with thinner embossed paper. They’re both rich and cerebral in their celebration of form and texture.

  The most literal interpretations of the exhibition’s theme come from Rebecca Sexton Larson and Frank Strunk III in the reactive processes used to create their work. Strunk’s metal sculptures are composed from sheets of metal he subjects to various surface finishes. Rivets are used to connect the sheets and as artistic tropes that guide the eye across the plane. The best of three is Convexed, a curved panel nodding toward Richard Serra.

  Finding where photography ends and painting begins in Larson’s work is almost impossible. She uses both to meld old and new images, personal and public references for her lovely hybrids. The darkroom nuances she coaxes from negatives made from a pinhole camera are enhanced in her prints with sometimes impenetrable details. Figuring them all out is beside the point; swallow them whole for a visual feast.

  Reaction here is not limited to the art and artists. Paula Allen’s cast of ceramic characters, clustered like village eccentrics against a painted backdrop, beg us to play with them, to move them around in new combinations and relationships to each other. You’re encouraged to do so by the artist.

  That, of course, is the most visceral way we are invited to react to this exhibition. Like all art, the more it asks of us, the more it gives.

  Lennie Bennett can be reached at
  (727) 893-8293 or lennie@sptimes.com.

• 4 Erika Schneider // Apr 11, 2008 at 8:37 am

  We cannot move forward with an art community without having an intellectual critical space. That 2 critics do not agree is normal. Critique is a mixed reaction of opinion and research. Each critic balances those two options in his/her manner.
  At least we have different opinions. This is what fuels discussion.

• 5 Noah Rollins // Apr 11, 2008 at 10:16 am

  In general terms:
  Fortunately any critique is, in part, informed by personal experience, taste and opinion. Criticism can be valuable, and should also be seen more closely related to scientific theory than proof. It’s entirely normal for critics to diverge in opinion, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is what creates smart and productive dialogue. I’m often skeptical of art forms (whether they are music, film etc) where all critics fall in lock-step.

  Most importantly, a critique should never be taken personally or as a point of resentment. At the least it can be simply discarded, as I think anyone who puts themselves on the line with a creative endeavor is strong enough to do that. At the most it can facilitate productive discussion and growth, both for those giving and receiving criticism.

  In regional terms:
  Whether we live in a major metropolis inundated with the arts or a smaller berg with fewer contributions should not reduce the need for smart criticism. We should always embrace discussion. No one should ever confuse “critique” with “attack.”

  Megan certainly makes a point that not everyone in our Bay area arts community is traditionally trained, and that should probably calculate into any criticism, as should the intention of an event (is it non-profit, did it have additional commercial goals, did it require the collaboration of multiple minds, how seriously does it take itself, etc.) In the specific case of CEFA, my personal opinion is that the gallery typically presents thoughtful exhibitions of talented fine artists, with a strong showing of our regional artists while infusing fresh blood from the outside. No doubt this will continue; in this case one critic simply felt this exhibition was less-strong than previous outings. I hope the few arts writers in our community will take up this challenge to use a more critical eye, and perhaps the dialogue will even elevate our local arts scene.

• 6 Melissa Fair // Apr 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  I do think critique has a place at any show. What I am wary of, and this is also impossible, is knowing what personal biases a particular critic has - do they hate installations, do they love traditional portraiture, do they loathe abstract art? Are they strictly gallery hawks? Will they consider that good art might exist at an art ”party”? That kind of thing - because you tend to judge harshest that which you love AND that which you hate. But still, I agree that critique does create conversation and does offer, at times, a point for an artist or curator/event organizer a place to begin to improve what might actually be a real opportunity.

  I would love to have been or be able to afford workshops, a traditional fine arts education - but it’s not in my financial cards. So, I do the best with what I can. Do I always strive to do better? Do I try to learn new techniques? Do I ask myself while creating ‘is this self-indulgent?’ (as much as any piece inherently is)…the answer is YES to all of the above.

  Always present for me is the fear that my work appears inexperienced or less than technically skilled. I would hope I am not alone in such self questioning. I have had the same experience with the world of literary poetry, but still found some success in major journals- right along side the MFA holding, multiple book award winning poets. One of my poems appears in the same issue as Louise Gluck! I got a mention by name in Poets and Writers, one time…but I’ll take it. I hope that the art world can be as forgiving of pedigree and look at the finished product.

  While terrified, I would love to have a ‘qualified’ (whatever that means) person look at my work.
  (and tell me in a letter(!) ) what it needs OR what I did right, if by chance I did manage to do something acceptable. I still think there is a little too much weight given to educational pedigree - as I said in an earlier post. If it’s good, it’s good. If it ain’t, it just ain’t. No matter who you are.

  On some level, it matters and on some level, it doesn’t. Because I’d be doing it either way. Whether I’m able to sell some of it while I’m alive or I become an NYC-styled shut in and exist with a thousand canvases piled around my dead body when they find me.

  Just like the world of creative writing, there is room for a multitude of styles, approaches and artists. I would just hope that a critic might be self-aware enough to realize when they might be attacking out of some personal interest and pull the reins.

  I do think, that in the end, collectors and other buyers of art have the final say on what flies right, right?

• 7 kaya // Apr 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm

  Megan, I meant to write to you as soon as I read the story in CL but I never did.. I loved reading it! It’s so well written it was a pleasure reading it.
  Also, I felt very similar about the show.

  Imagine not saying what you really want to say & always saying nice things?

  It would be so boring!

• 8 Kelli // Apr 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  Megan,

  A pleasure to read a critical review. A painful pleasure, no doubt, but pleasure nonetheless.

  Any artist worth his or her salt has endured harsh critique. I imagine it will be a challenge for some of those you’ve reviewed to put ego aside, and move on to do their work without hating you for it.

  Was the article, for you, an act of freedom? A cutting of strings? In our little Tampa art pond, I think friendship (or friendliness) and unwavering high opinion of one’s work is a relationship that is taken for granted - or even assumed.

  We all want to produce successful work. We all want to mount successful shows. Some of ours at the DFAC have, I’m sure, fallen a little flat in the public eye. That’s just how it goes.

  Artists put themselves out there for review. Let’s all of us work harder, better, faster. And be thankful that critics care enough to take us to task from time to time.

  (P.S. One of my favorite critic/artist battles is Robert Hughes vs. Julian Schnabel. To the scorned and misunderstood, please pick up a copy of “Nothing if Not Critical”)

• 9 Denis Gaston // Apr 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  In response to your question of the local value of art criticism, I would first like to ask what is it about self-taught artists and curators that deems them unworthy of hearing good criticism.? An art school degree does not automatically produce a creative wunderkind.
  In fact, a case could be made that only after graduation does the real learning begin—through years of creative trial and error, in short, self-teaching.
  All along the way, the artist benefits from reasoned criticism, whether it is positive or negative. For that reason, I applaud your “Critical Reaction” piece.

• 10 Colleen // Apr 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  In order to grow as an artist, critique is necessary. However, the source of the critique should play a role on what value a reader puts on that critique. To place a lable of good art or bad art based of a formal education level is idiotic. A piece of paper saying that you were able to pay for the classes doesn’t constitue art, nor does choosing a life of poverty to live the stereotypical ‘artists’ way. The ability to create and have your creation touch another, is the ultimate display of art. If it touches a critic.. great, if it doesn’t, not the end! It may have touched 10 others that attended the show.. even better. Critics should have the same freedoms as the artist. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. I would just hope the people that read the reviews, would be far enough along in the evolution of man to be able to make up their own mind…. possibly go to an art show, support the community, etc.

• 11 Kelli // Apr 13, 2008 at 7:25 am

  Here, here, Denis! We love you and your words make me love everyone.

• 12 kaya // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  One thing I’d like to add is that I Loved attending the opening at C. Emerson. It’s a wonderful space and I realized that it’s been a long long time since I went to an art opening to a place with no DJ / band / fashion show, with white walls, and people who are there to see art and talk to artists..
  I think I’ve been attending too many “art parties”.. and this was such a nice change.
  (and I could actually talk without screaming.. !!)

  I hope none of the artists featured in React are feeling discouraged after reading Megan’s story. You are all wonderful! It is Megan’s job to say how she feels about the show & I ALWAYS enjoy her writing. . I hope her critique will not stop you art lovers out there from going to see the show & finding out how YOU feel about it.

• 13 megan // Apr 13, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  Hello everyone.

  I’m not going to have time to respond at length to all these great comments until tomorrow most likely, but I wanted to jump in and remark on a few points quickly.

  First, I think the level of thoughtful discussion and civility here is phenomenal. Blogs have a bad rap for enabling the kind of snarky exchanges and flame wars that make constructive discussion all but impossible, but that has never been a problem here. I think that alone already says something great about our arts community.

  In reference to Kaya’s comment, I hope that any review—especially one that offers criticism along with compliments—encourages readers to go check out an exhibit for themselves and develop their own opinions. For one thing, every exhibit or artwork will inspire a whole spectrum of opinions, so chances are a reader is not going to simply agree or disagree with the opinion of a particular writer or friend or gallery-goer. Often I read a review in a newspaper or magazine I don’t necessarily agree with completely, but I can see how the review came to at least some of his/her conclusions. The point isn’t picking sides—it’s having a discussion and thoughtful consideration.

  Re: the education issue, I agree that the quality of an artist’s work has nothing to do with what kind of degree they have (if any) or where it’s from. Whether an artist has received formal education on some level may, however, factor into what kind of critique I’m going to offer them. If an artist (or curator) has not had a thorough introduction to the concept and practice of critique and the value of weighing and incorporating criticism into their work, I have doubts about how productive it is to engage with them in that area. I think self-taught artists sometimes tend to practice within their comfort zone (sorry for the cliché) and react defensively to critique because they see it as an attack on their personal expression rather than a debate or discussion about their work in the context of art as a larger discourse. Now, that’s a generalization, and generalizations always have exceptions, but it’s pretty much where I stand on the issue right now.

  Denis, I don’t know if that answers your question… It’s not that anyone is unworthy, but I may tread with more caution if someone’s practice is more intuitive than formally educated. I very much agree with your points about genius being unrelated to degree status and that we are all ultimately largely self-taught.

• 14 megan // Apr 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  I mean, isn’t that what attracts us all to art on some level (that it’s a constant learning process)?

• 15 Denis Gaston // Apr 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  Point well taken. A writer must always consider their audience, whether it’s the artist or the casual gallery visitor.
  However, even the insulated self-taught artist must, we hope, at some point join the discussion.
  Else how would they learn and grow as artists.

• 16 kym o'donnell // Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20 am

  The worst criticism is that of omission and a thoughtful review that expresses certain misgivings is still a thoughtful review. To date I think I have seen 2 reviews in Creative Loafing or this blog that could be construed as somewhat negative (if that is even appropriate to say…hesitant, maybe?). The large number of shows written about have run the gamut from museum events to small happenings and have covered a broad range of genres. Consistently work has been written about in a way that provides an entry point to readers without being fluffy or didactic.
  To get more to the point, keep doing what you’re doing and hopefully other writers will follow suit. If the occasional review is considerate but less than glowing, so be it. In a perfect world we’ll have duelling reviews for all of our shows. In the meantime we can blog.

• 17 Damien Hirst // Apr 20, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  Art is such a subjective thing that it opens doors for all kinds of interpretations and opinions. No one these days can say for certain what is art, what it should be or look like. Duchamp blew that bubble as R. Mutt almost 100 years ago (And in the Tampa Bay art scene and art public it seems he never existed and the Armory show never happened).

  But one can try to explore the Arts’ larger context. In that sense I see Megan’s attempt as a step forward, but feel she missed her mark. The review looks like it was written solely for the sake of being critical and for the sake of playing devils advocate of sort. I don’t think that does any good to anybody. Words are more powerful then images especially embellished as sound arguments and sold to the wider ignorant public as almost facts. I think of Donald Kuspit and Paul Johnson. They’ve mastered their devilish trade.

  As an artist who has studied and explored art history and criticism in depth, I’m already my own worst critic and generally have low opinions about some two-penny critics trying to score some ego-boosting points on my back. But I also admit that there are a lot bullshiteaters outhere calling themselves artists and making the serious artists’ life difficult. But where is the distinction? Someone has to check these ‘swine’! I just feel that Megan opened the wrong tomb with this piece. I went to see the show myself and liked what I saw very much. And that is my humble opinion.

  I agree with Megan though that Tampa Bay has very little to show for when it comes to ‘Edge’ art. Miami is only 250 miles away and a different planet when it comes to Art. Apart from the Art Center and C. Emerson there is nothing else really. And I have my doubts about that ever being the case. Why? Lack of proper and thorough self-education, tender egos, weak visions and general self-indulgent ignorance and not to forget the imbecilic public that thinks great art can be seen at the Vinoy Park. Megan should maybe explore this angle. Otherwise keep it dynamic! Both the negative and the positive are crucial especially when it comes to art. The real artist wins either way! Thanks!

• 18 kaya // Apr 21, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  are you THE Damien Hirst?

• 19 Damien Hirst // Apr 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm

  I’m actually the shark in the tank! Yes, THE real Damien Hirst!! Check out my skull! Excuse the riddle! They need you at the Vinoy!!! Thanks…

• 20 Banksy // Apr 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm

  Damien’s a F&*%-up.

• 21 Lee Lee // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  Critics have a difficult task in responding to creative works because art is very subjective. I’ve had my fair share of harsh criticism and I love it. I love it when it is thorough and honest and when the critic is able to approach art in a way that is deeply rooted in either their knowledge of the work itself or a larger context. When an artist is subjected to criticism, both of their own work as well as others, it quickly becomes evident when a critic is able to step back and asses a body of work with deep consideration.

  However, it is all too common for critics to fall into venting their own frustrations. I felt a great deal of bitterness from the article. Not having had an opportunity to see the show myself, I felt I was left hanging - asking a lot of whys and hows to the comments made. It is vital to be able to express opinions in a way that they are supported by strong foundations, otherwise a critic quickly looses their reputation.

• 22 Kim Michelle // Apr 23, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  Still, I think that someone has to put their foot out there. Megan, although she might be a frustrated critic, at least she is feeling and thinking and sharing. We cannot just be polite all the time. Where is the truth in that. We need to push each other and we can only do it for ourselves. This area might not ever become a great art haven but there are true artists here, and why talk more about craft fairs and art shows? We see it all the time? We cannot open up the eyes of the general public by continuing to give them what they think they want. They don’t have a clue what they want to see. That is our job as artists and creators, to help people along, raising them up and letting the light seep through, however reluctant they must be.

  The only way to do that is to concern ourselves with the ideas we are all working with and push push push, challenge each other.

  I am probably going to die with all the criticism I am asking for since I feel as sensitive as a flame in the wind but I guess I have been urning for it. I feel refreshed and now supported. So, THANKYOU!!!

• 23 Melissa Fair // Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  okay, I’m back for one last comment, from me, I hope on this topic. While I agree with Kim Michelle that we need to push and challenge each other (artists and critics), I’m not sure I agree 100% with the idea that the general public doesn’t have a clue what they want to see.

  Historically, the general public en masse has never been a patron of art for art’s sake. Even in cities where the large museums draw multitudes of visitors a day, people are going to see the Monet or Klimt, etc. And the museum is largely another attraction to see while visiting that city. I am speaking of the general public en masse here, not the smaller percentage of art lovers who have lunch every day in front of the Kandinsky.

  I don’t know what the answer is exactly, especially in the economic climate today with rising food prices and fuel prices, people are making everyday decisions about how they will spend their time and money. Well, most of them anyway. I know the answer is not to further insulate the art world. It would be great if we could apply the whole field of dreams philosophy to art - if you paint it, and show it, they will come. Eventually.

  But I’m not sure how true that is today. And, woefully, here.

  Maybe I should have more faith?

  The general public may not have even taken an art appreciation class in college. And the idea of art and viewing art can be very intimidating to someone who’s never been exposed to anything much beyond a Van Gogh Sunflowers poster. I still get a bit woozy walking into a gallery opening or other art event!

  I do agree that education and outreach is the answer - but sometimes you gotta take it to the streets, so to speak, to reach the people. And this is where I wish the whole idea of art in public places would be a little more grounded when deciding on themes for abandoned storefront shows or what steel structure we should plop down on Kennedy Avenue. I’m not saying we have to pander to the lowest common denominator at all. But, (and excuse my crude analogy here) you can’t get the rabbit to hop in the trap without some enticement. I think there’s a middle ground somewhere. You don’t introduce someone to poetry by showing them language poetry first. You can’t just go climb Mt Everest without conquering some smaller mountains first… I think you see what I’m saying here.

  The general public and the local government is why we have a huge stadium for a football team and not a proportionately sized museum. We even tore down a perfectly good stadium to build another!

  I think what I’m saying is that we need to work both sides… we must continue to challenge ourselves to do our best work (whether you’re creating it or reviewing it), try to illuminate the great art and artists that are here, take care of our serious patrons and give a warm welcome to every person who comes to view your art. Engage them. Make them feel comfortable to ask questions. Smile. Each one of us is an ambassador of sorts. And we’re all learning as we go.

• 24 joe griffith // Apr 26, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Damien must have found this blog by way of E.S.’s
  riff on his diamond skull! I suppose we should expect a letter from his attorney.
  Anyway, i think the discussion that has unfolded since the review was published is proof that it is beneficial. I only hope there is more critical writing to come.

Leave a Comment