A two-day long symposium with 22 thought-provoking lectures by international artists across various disciplines; artists, theatre specialists, a chinese opera specialist dancers, an art historian, music curators, lecturers, etc..
Some interesting points raised:
“But when forms are subverted and accepted rules and principles abandoned, by what criteria are we to judge the work? Many critics today avoid this challenge by simply describing what the artist does, for a balue judgement is thought to be purely subjective. Express a critical opinion and you’ll be told ‘that’s only what you think.’ The result is that today ‘anything goes’, so long as it is exhibited or performed.”
– Art historian Michael Sullivan, in his Keynote paper which opened the symposium.
If that is true, what then, is the role of the critic? The critic, I quote from a recent reading given to me in class last week, ” is a teacher of appreciation at the highest level.” He is also “an informed music (or art) lover writing for other music (art) lovers.” In other words, I believe that a critic should write about the work fairly and objectively.
Michael Sullivan continues writing:
“To appreciate a Rembrandt self-portrait, or a Beethoven Sonata, we not need to look for the idea or meaning behind it. The meaning is the work itself.”
I disagree. Then what about interpretation? A Beethoven Sonata, as interpreted by different pianists, would sound different. There would be many ideas, many meanings and many opinions. Variations of tempi, dynamics and articulation. Music appreciation is dependent on two factors – the performer(s) and the composer. In a sense, the interpretation is no longer fully the composer’s. However, in some cases, even if the composer is performing the work, he might find someone else’s performance of his work better than his own. So here comes the critic’s role. He writes so that we know what to listen for. He connects the composer and performer with the listeners such that we all get something out of the performance.
However, I think this is not so for art. Perhaps art is better appreciated “straight from the source”, with that being from the artist’s brush. Most of art is also left to our imagination and perception. Perhaps Goethe’s “Bilde, Künstler! Rede nicht!” is true after all.