• ARGUMENT •
Critics play a major role in producing art value and, as with the evidence provided, it is clearly seen that most art critics cannot be trusted to set the value of Art. As previously stated, some modern artworks were appraised by critics who either increased or decreased the value of the piece. How is it that these critics have the right to determine the ultimate price and influence the status of the artist? What gives these critics the authority to decide the value of the art?
When a buyer is presented with a piece by the dealer or artist themselves, they receive a limited amount of information. Most critics provide a narrow view, and complete only some degree of research before presenting the information to buyers. For example, the buyer is often presented with merely the opinions of the artwork, or a individual art critic' estimations. The reviews could be altered to fit the needs of the dealer — swaying the current market evaluation, and causing the piece to be sold at an unreasonable price. (Innarella, 4) In order to ensure proper procedures on determining the value, it is necessary to provide as much detailed information as possible on the past sales and history of the artist and of the particular piece. Some may say that it is the buyers’ choice to decide how much money they are willing to bid on the piece based on how aesthetically pleasing it is to their eye. Though, that may not always be the case, especially with high priced pieces worth up to hundreds even millions of dollars. This is because the significance of the art is not only based on the visuals, but more often on the antiquity.
What if you were presented with a piece and were told that it was produced by a world known famous painter or sculptor – would you not demand more evidence of authenticity before taking out the checkbook? Art forgeries, for instance, are precisely the results from situations where the buyers were not given the all of the information on the historical log of the artwork. In 2003, an 3,300 year old Egyptian statue depicting granddaughter of King Tutankhamen, was purchased by The Bolton Museum for approximately 700,000 US dollars. (Trimarchi, 4) The statue was authenticated by the British Museum and Christie's, but later discovered that it was merely a fake which was created by Shaun Greenhalgh in his shed in Bolton. Yes, the statue shows that this man was capable of artistic skill and talent, though the Museums were not concerned about that factor - they were seeking genuineness. It strikes curiosity when pondering about the tactics used to identify the validity of the sculpture in the first place. The experts most likely peered into the chemical composition of the work, and the style, but did they closely examine the origin of the statue? Where it was found, by whom it was discovered, and any passed transactions of the piece? If this specific research was more thoroughly conducted, then there is a high possibility the statue would have been put under suspicion, not to mention the embarrassment for both The Bolton Museum, the trusted critics and experts could have been avoided.
The oil-on-canvas Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is said to be one of the most famous creations of Russian art in the last century. Malevich was an artist who started the Suprematism movement - a style based on the supremacy of pure artistic feeling. Before bringing forth the acclaims of critics and meaning of the painting (as stated by the artist) - the painting is simple to comprehend. Not much explanation is needed, the piece could be straightforwardly described with the title "Black Square". The work does not show visual evidence of skill and lacks a level creativity, though, surprisingly it was sold on market for approximately one million dollars in 2003. Museum of Modern Art on account of John Milner from the Oxford University Press writes, "Malevich declared that the Black Square constituted the ‘zero of form’, an end to old conventions and the origin of a new pictorial language." (Milner, 1) Thus, digging deeper into the meaning of the piece, it is understandable that Malevich was attempting to paint something which challenged the definition of art and cultural norm in his time period. Examining the Black Square once more, the value of the painting contradicts the content. It was deemed a masterpiece by critics who appraised the artist for applying endeavor into creating it; though, at a glance, no extravagant effort is visible. This painting, and all four versions of it, illustrate the artists' knowledge of shapes rather than claiming it "looks back bleakly at life...[and] seems to suck out energy and create an uncanny stillness." (Jones) One could look intently at a blank black chalkboard and say the same. The difference is, that chalkboard would not make it into the Museum of Modern Art where art-lovers from all over the globe would be honored of scrutinizing it in person.
|
Art critics are the authors of their own reviews - and it is disappointing to witness an audience so gullibly agreeing and accepting any words they state. The interests of each critic differs, and because of this, all art pieces do not receive the same connotations. Critics evaluate works based on personal interests and values, therefore they can easily sway the audience into conforming to their ideals and opinions. The evidence of Abstract Expressionism art being used as propaganda during the Cold War proves this idea; whereas the United States was pushing Abstract Expressionism for purposes of stopping communistic ideology. The movement was ultimately for a good cause, however, the same strategies could be used by modern day art critics to facade unbeneficial doctrines. When viewing an artwork, each individual is obviously entitled to make their own assumption of the piece. Nevertheless, you as a spectator do not have the right to set the value of the piece - your judgment, along with everyone else in the audience, does not matter. Spectators place full confidence in the critics reviews, believing that these experts understand the connotation of the piece best.
Some argue that without critics, the work of the artist may not receive the proper reaction from the audience - that they enlighten the common viewer to perceiving the true significance of the art. In a manner, this inquisition is not always correct. Although they can provide interpretation to various mediums, they can never determine the full extent of meaning behind the visual (unless they have had direct contact with the artist). Therefore, their examinations will nearly remain theories (especially with historical art) — critics will ultimately distort the meaning of the piece at some point.
Some argue that without critics, the work of the artist may not receive the proper reaction from the audience - that they enlighten the common viewer to perceiving the true significance of the art. In a manner, this inquisition is not always correct. Although they can provide interpretation to various mediums, they can never determine the full extent of meaning behind the visual (unless they have had direct contact with the artist). Therefore, their examinations will nearly remain theories (especially with historical art) — critics will ultimately distort the meaning of the piece at some point.
Additionally, stated by Raymond J. Steiner, the Editor and co-founder of ART TIMES:
"A ‘good’ (knowledgeable) critic might have some solid opinions to offer and might even inform his readers. He/she might even urge you to go and see a certain artist, view a certain exhibition, because in his/her opinion it’ll be worth your while — but they will always have their biases... Of course, some opinions are more valuable than others — when you have that pain in your chest, I advise you take the opinion of a doctor rather than, say, that of a plumber. In all probability, the doctor has more knowledge and experience in the matter. Which "expert" opinion you choose to accept is your choice and will only reflect your level of knowledge and understanding. But, as I warn above, no critic can ‘explain’ or ‘judge’ art — or ‘translate’ it into words." (Steiner, 1) |
|
A 2014 survey conducted at the Eastern Washington University campus asked a diverse group of twenty students to identify which works are supposedly hung in galleries/museums, and which are created by infamous toddlers. The quiz presented twenty works from Modern artists like Willem De Kooning, Hans Hoffman, Gerhard Richter, Sam Gilliam, Sam Francis, Cy Twombly, Olivier Debre. Only 25 percent of the students managed to identify more than 14 of the works correctly. The rest could only identify up to thirteen paintings properly (some even less than seven paintings), receiving a score lower than 70 percent on the survey. These results represent that public opinion on art may not correspond with what the critics say. When interviewing the students who partook in the survey, they were asked to explain what aspects of the painting they based their judgment on. The common responses included commenting on the technique used by the artist such as; brush strokes, focus on small details, color choice, arrangement, ect. (Korolyuk, 1) These all revolve around one mutual characteristic — skill. The subjects were paying close attention to the dexterity that the artist presented, in order to classify if the artist actually put effort into creating the piece.
[The Modern Art vs Toddler Art quiz is linked in the Extra* tab of this webpage]
There are many examples of art, such as the one by Malevich, which cause viewers to ask: How is this even considered art? or How did this artwork gain popularity and value? The answer is simple. In art, there is no such approach of determining worth of art based majority opinion. The value is influenced, determined, and set by the critics. Just as other fields of study, the field of art has its share of experts; however, their 'level of expertise' is widely based upon personal values than facts. Critics focus on the connotations of the artist or artwork, and not as much on the dexterity or creative talent. Art value must be equally asserted by both skill and context. Artworks which are appraised only on behalf of their interpretation should be questioned.
In essence, art critics could be used as references for facts or for enlightenment on a different angle unto the interpretation of the artwork. However, they certainly cannot be trusted to set the final value of art in the market and this is because often times they do not provide past information. As previously stated, the also represent/acknowledge their own personal ideals, and they frequently disregard the significance of portraying ability/talent in art.
In essence, art critics could be used as references for facts or for enlightenment on a different angle unto the interpretation of the artwork. However, they certainly cannot be trusted to set the final value of art in the market and this is because often times they do not provide past information. As previously stated, the also represent/acknowledge their own personal ideals, and they frequently disregard the significance of portraying ability/talent in art.
[CLICK ON IMAGES TO VIEW SOURCE]