Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

What is the relationship between art and the critique?

Post a reply
User avatar
159 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 7146
Reviews: 159
Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:37 pm
MeanMrMustard says...



Quite simply put, is art derived from the artist or from some higher source? Also, what is the relationship of the critique to art? Is art defined in the critical eye's overview? Is art then defined by some school of study and can we label art?

Or is art determined by morals? Should we censor art that offends us? Should we never use possibly offensive material? Perhaps, should we forget what is "offensive" and see art purely as expression and let it be unrestricted? Do you find offensive material in a work makes it vulgar and something that should not be considered art? Do you find yourself liking didactic art or art that strays from this path?

So what responsibility does the critical reviewer have in attempting to determine what art is, such that they determine the ability, skill, and relevancy of a work? Does the audience, the viewing and experiencing public, have just as much say in what is art, or is art always separate and simply between the artist and their mind?

Consider these questions and present a position from your perspective (all forms of art are included this: writing, illustrative/visual, text, etc.).

My thought, not my opinion or position, is that people often carry predilections with them as to what art should and should not inherently embody or incorporate into itself. Art, as a concept though, is often shown to be a Western idea (popularized around the world through ages such as the Enlightenment) and some have belied the idea as attempting to force itself on other cultures. In a microcosm, we bring our expectations in presenting art and critiquing it, and can quite possibly miss the entire context and intention of a work/critique merely by finding something to not fit or offend our own specific expectations.