RE: The artist was in her X period...
I think that sometimes people want to read other people's minds, and even worse: they want to diagnose something that doesn't exist based on random facts, which forces you to explain things that would be obvious if the critics had ever painted a work of art (or written a book). There's a saying that's very common in my country, but I think it's universal: "Those who know, know; those who don't know, teach." I think something like that happens with critics, in any field, since they don't have the talent to create for themselves, they find no satisfaction other than in criticizing the works of others, and the worst part is that they probably earn more than the artists they criticize. And now for my politically incorrect opinion: I'm quite sure that the price of a work of art has more to do with the skill of dealers, public relations professionals, and the "collaboration" of the critics. How else can you explain the success and critical acclaim of writers like Paulo Coelho, and so many others who are famous, successful, and bestsellers, but when you actually read them, you feel like you've been ripped off and wasted your time? Well, I'm talking about literature, though I'm no expert by any means, but honestly, I know nothing about painting!
Creo que a veces las personas quieren meterse en la mente de los demás, y aún peor: quieren diagnosticar algo que no existe basados en hechos aleatorios, lo que hace que tengas que explicar cosas que serían obvias si los críticos alguna vez hubieran pintado una obra ( o escrito un libro).
Hay una frase muy usada en mi país, pero creo que es mundial que dice "El que sabe, sabe; el que no sabe, enseña". Creo que algo así sucede con los críticos, de cualquier ámbito, ya que no tienen el talento de crear por sí mismos, no encuentran más satisfacción que en criticar las obras de otros, y lo peor es que seguro ganan más que los artistas a los que critican.
Y ahora mi opinión políticamente incorrecta: estoy bastante segura que la cotización de alguna obra, tiene más que ver con la habilidad de los merchantes, relacionistas públicos, y la "colaboración" de los críticos. De qué otra forma se puede explicar el éxito y las buenas críticas para escritores como Paulo Cohelo, y otros muchos que tienen fama, éxito, son best-sellers, pero cuando los lees, piensas que te estafaron y perdiste el tiempo.
Bueno, hablo de literatura, aunque no soy experta ni mucho menos, pero de pintura sinceramente no se nada!
Art critic is a job and I assume they have knowledge about art but for sure whatever they say does effect the painting and the (old) master. Look at the old paintings hundreds of years old, all of a sudden those living today know how that painter felt at the specific moment he was painting a certain "masterpiece".
Art for sure is personal, you feel it or not, same counts for writers and if it comes to P Coelho he's by far not that great to me as said. I am also disappointed by his book I bought, but that seems to be typicall for literature.
🍀❤️
@wakeupkitty
Well, I suppose they can understand techniques and styles, but you also need discernment. Let's think of Van Gogh, one of the most emblematic cases of an artist whose work only became valuable after his death. Was it bad luck, or did the critics simply not like him? Then there's Picasso, who was famous during his lifetime, and who, in my opinion, is less deserving of credit than other artists. But as you say, art is subjective, although it seems to me that it's a narrative used to launch certain artists to fame. As an aside, in Paraguay, according to gossip, you can't achieve success without being gay. But hey, maybe it's just a coincidence!
Bueno, supongo que pueden entender técnicas y estilos, pero también se necesita discernimiento. Pensemos en Van Gogh, uno de los casos más emblemáticos de un artista cuya obra solo adquirió valor después de su muerte. ¿Fue mala suerte, o simplemente no les gustó a los críticos? Luego está Picasso, famoso en vida, y que, en mi opinión, merece menos reconocimiento que otros artistas. Pero como dices, el arte es subjetivo, aunque me parece que es una narrativa utilizada para catapultar a la fama a ciertos artistas. Por cierto, en Paraguay, según los rumores, no se puede triunfar sin ser gay. ¡Pero bueno, tal vez sea solo una coincidencia!
Art is so subjective. How can an art critic actually give a verdict that isn't biased?
Exactly, but I think is the people who should have the last word based in their feelings and not in the critics thoughts.
Hm… I see it this way. Being an artist is not a right, but a privilege. Art is an activity that only the privileged (read: the wealthy) can pursue without suffering financial hardship. I think Leonardo da Vinci was very fortunate when Francis I of France gave him room and board, because even a genius like him experienced financial difficulties.
Strictly speaking, art is economically unproductive. It carries intangible benefits for society that indirectly help sustain the economy, but those effects are difficult to pinpoint with a purely practical eye.