By way if introduction, I am a somewhat retired art instructor from Wyoming and a still working painter of large, sort of abstract landscapes. I am on the Visual Arts Advisory Board at the Dahl (a great asset to the community) and teach part-time at BHSU.
Being new to both a medium (blogging) and a place I am sure opens me to making many spectacular mistakes. Hopefully they will be the kind of mistakes which create laughter and light.
I have noticed since I came here that what I would call “art criticism†is pretty
much absent from the scene. I don’t see reviews of art shows in the Journal, and have not
found columns or essays that could be called “critical†in any of the local/regional magazines. James Van Nuys does a fine job in his column of describing arts events and individual artists’ work, but his focus seems to be more on moving people to get out to see the work rather than critically examining what they do.
I have also found that when I make a critical comment about a work, even when asked
to do so by the artist, a general silence descends upon the room and people begin to move away from me. Don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about expressing personal opinions like, “this work sucks!†But about asking critique-type questions like, “Why are you are using colors that are all about the same value?†or, “How do you see your work in the context of contemporary landscape painting?”
My questions about this phenomenon are many; but we could start with: Is there an unspoken but commonly understood ban on public art criticism in the area? Do artists get together in secret and critique each other’s works—or does the ban extend into the private sphere as well?
In my previous world critique has been a necessary and constructive element–one which leads to greater understanding of what I am trying to do as a painter and to greater growth as an artist. Have I just not gained access to where this kind of dialogue happens here? Does it happen?
Does Quinn Acridone know?
Lynn Thorpe