I almost called this "how to herd llamas," LOL.

My previous editorial was about defining art as a value instead of as a thing. I mentioned that the viewer plays a proactive role in whether something has the value of art. This entry is a focus on the viewer’s role, for if there is no viewer, there can be no art. I mentioned that there are two values, art and ordinary, and that it is by an occurrence of a phenomenon that elevates the object or event above the level of ordinary; but, it is up to the viewer to recognize this phenomenon before the level can be elevated. This editorial is to continue the definition of art and define the critique process.

Why do we need to learn to look? Weren’t we born with eyes? Yes, but because I have eyes, does not mean that I can read. It does not mean that I have the facilities to fully appreciate what I am looking at. The first philosophers, Plato, Sophocles, etc, defined how the brain works in cogitating the world around them. And, this is the process we know as the critique process, and it has to be practiced to begin to pull meaning from works of art, for without a process we flounder upon the great works of art aimlessly hitting and missing the point.

I blame liberal elementary art teachers for bringing down the esteem and power of art. Back in the 60’s there was this revolution amongst art teachers to liberally teach art without teaching students how to look. “Art is what you want it to be.” “Art can mean whatever you want it to be.” Instead of keeping up with evolving advances in modern art aesthetics, it became easier to use these catch all phrases. “It is like looking at clouds and pulling out images that randomly appear.” I am sure that Jackson Pollock would have socked one of these teachers in the mouth. He was a deep thinker that punched first and spoke later, but he was no dummy. He didn’t paint clouds. This liberal way of interpreting art has devalued art. Powers that be see it as playtime in school, thus they cut funding. Generations of artists go on to make art without knowing how to even look at them. Superstitions develop where knowledge of inquiry is lost. Art is fundamentally important to every human being, but first we need to learn to look.

This critique process is a continuation of the creative process. The artist and viewer have to connect for there to be a process of communication. Far too often painters paint, without even thinking about how it will be looked at. But, for there to be art, there has to be critics. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to critique a work to deem it art or ordinary. Otherwise, we just accept what the museums tell us is art, or we become apathetic. But, the sole purpose of the process is to pull meaning and evaluate for ourselves whether something is art. Without the process we draw for no one, we draw for darkness, we draw in vain.

There are four distinct steps to the process; describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate. The first step, describe, is to just think about what you are looking at. “I am looking at an oil painting of someone in a red hat. There is also a cat, skull, and a burning zebra in the background,” etc… It may seem mundane or frivolous to do this, but if you consciously exercise this, you may just be surprised at what you may be missing in works. Every year I show my classes the sculpture of Donatello’s David, and almost everyone says they have seen it. And, they sigh when I ask them to describe it. I keep pushing them and pushing. Then, after they think they have described it to death, I point out that there is a feather coming up from Goliath’s helmet and that it is lightly brushing David’s buttocks. (I bet you're going to go check on that. Also, how many years has Da Vinci’s Last Supper been painted and no one noticed that the person to the left of Jesus looks like a woman? Can we ever describe enough?

The second step is to analyze. This is where we break down a work into how it was made, how it is organized, and what thing reacts with another. Most people don’t realize that historically, paintings didn’t typically crop parts of people off until the invention of photography. Until then, painters tried very hard to work in the whole person, and it makes for some very odd compositions. Next time you see a Botticelli or Michelangelo, notice how they extend the scene way out to include every part of the people in the composition. Then look at Daumier or Delacroix. This is a complicated stage, for you have to really think about the work, and this analytical thinking takes practice. It is like figuring out how a car engine works, whether it works, and what exactly is broken in the work. You have to have had experience with car engines to develop this skill. Look, look, look, and keep practicing this.

The third stage relies upon the second. You have to analyze how the piece works to help figure out what it means. This is the interpret stage. You decode the work. Or, you figure out what it is used for. I hand out a bunch of gadgets that I have found at the thrift store and I ask my students every year to tell me what the object is used for. You have to analyze the object to interpret what you are supposed to do with it. You also have to analyze a work to figure out what a symbol might mean. For example, we all are familiar with a swastika. We know what it stands for, but when we see this image within a Native American work, such as a woven rug, we cannot just assume that it means the same thing. First we have to come to an understanding that the object with the symbol that we are familiar with is not associated with the Nazis. You also have to interpret the mood or feeling that is evoked within a work. Sometimes a work may have been created with only the intentions of evoking an emotion.

I love to tell my classes that art allows us to communicate with the dead. They look baffled, until I start critiquing a work by Giotto, Picasso, or even an ancient Grecian urn. We pull meaning from these ancient messages left to us by great thinkers. These artists of antiquity were not just doodling. They were not just pretty painters and sculptors. They reveal to us knowledge of what it means to be human that is as fresh today as it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. But, to pull meaning from symbols, signs, and metaphors, we have to also have a bit of understanding about the stories that these people shared. This requires exercising our brains, reading, and many young brains have been made so weak by liberal education that it hurts them to do this. So it goes.

The Church for hundreds of years did not allow people to see or read the Bible as a means of learning the many facets of Christianity. It was through teaching the people to critique the Christian works of art found everywhere in the churches that the religion was conveyed. Reading was not even a skill most had back then. So, critiquing the works of the masters was of more value back then than it was today for the common follower.

The final step is to take all that you’ve obtained and bring it together into an evaluation. We evaluate whether it works, whether we agree with the work, or whether we can at least appreciate it. This is where I get into trouble, because I believe that if the artist is accessible, then we should let them know the evaluation. If it is good, that is easy. If it is bad, then we should come up with a reason based on sound evaluation. If you can give a reason for disliking something after having gone through this process, then you will not end up saying things like, “your work sucks,” “you make ugly things,” or “my dog could have painted that.” An honest assessment of an artist’s work is part of learning how people will tend to view it.

OK, lets say that we open the first amendment up to DA, hypothetically speaking. Allow idiots to post what they will. If you see a work, you critique it, you soak it in, and you have really enjoyed it. Then you read where someone has posted something like, “you suck, your work sucks, and I am offended by what you call art.” Does your perception change? Does it devalue the artwork? the artist? the idea being conveyed? No, unless you are one of those people who always allows others to think for you. I know that I would just think less of the person who posted such a comment. And, leaving a stupid comment on your work is justice or karma at work. It needs to be left for people to see. Maybe even promote people to look at the comment. Bring attention to the fact that this person is an idiot. However, I feel that if people just took the time to actually critique something, giving it the time to go through all four steps, they will not only become closer to the artist if they find synchronicity, but if they don’t, then they will have a more intelligent constructive criticism of the work.

Examples of good feedback:

“Mr. Man Ray, I saw your work, LeViolon d’Ingres, and I think that you have captured your subject very well; however, I do not agree with the notion that you convey that women are like instruments, objects to be played with by man.”

“Mr. Ceramics Man, I saw your tea pot that you’ve made, and it worries me that someone will burn themselves, since you did not give it a handle. Tea is very hot.”

“Mr. Nude Photographer, I don’t like to see nudity.” This shows tons of stupidity but is a valid point. Some people are very offended by seeing nudity. It reminds them that they, themselves are ugly

Andy Warhol used to say, “Don’t worry about WHAT the critics say, just measure the amount of space they took to write it.” To me this means that if someone is evoked enough to write a lot about your work, whether good or bad, then you are deemed important in their eyes. I’m not sure who said it first, but “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”

Please feel free to add, criticize, or discuss this with me. I do not believe that I have all of the answers, and I value your opinions. It will give me a chance to grow. Thanks…