I once made the mistake of studying Indigenous literature for one term at USYD, under the ever watchful gaze of the left-of-Lenin, Dr Ivor Indyk (or as I liked to call him, Ivor Problem). If you think criticising Aboriginal art is difficult, without being called a white, privileged racist, try criticising anything written by an Aboriginal person. Some of the works we studied were so poorly written, that had they not been scribed by someone indigenous, they would have been relegated to the publishing editor's cylindrical filing cabinet. And yet, Ivor insisted that they rivalled the best of Tolstoy or Rimbaud.
I remember the days when the driving principle behind great creative work was "show, don't tell".
Too often these days, it seems to be "tell, don't show".
I went to an art exhibition recently where the titles and long, preachy descriptions of the paintings, seemed to be more important than the paintings themselves. Perhaps that was the point.
You'll only get my sympathy when, like me, you've been to an exhibition with labels telling us what Bono thinks about the work (!) But yes, interpretative labels are a real worry.
Down Boy! You're playing the little Aussie in your early comments on colour-blind casting.
And what a mistake to combine that with your thoughts on Blak art criticism. As a non-Indigenous commentator who has probably written more words about First Nations art and culture than any non-academic, I'll deal with that elsewhere.
But your problem with a Sri Lankan Hamlet is largely a matter of unfamiliarity.
Having been equally suprised by a Black actor playing a leading character in one of that very Scandinavian Ibsen's plays, I was assured by regular London theatre-goers that they hadn't noticed his colour, only his acting chops in the role. It's only unfamiliarity that breeds contempt, it seems.
BTW, empty Sydney cinemas for great opera performances from the US or Europe is a common experience - unless the opera's directed by Barrie Kosky!
I partially credit Robert Hughes' Nothing If Not Critical collection of essays for getting my interest in art rolling in the early 90s. He just made the artists he was writing about and the work they were doing just seem really interesting. Even if he didn't like them. He made me want to go and check out their work in art museums and commercial galleries around the world.
I understand when an artist creates something it means something to them. But to be honest now
I'm mostly just interested in what the painting or sculpture or whatever does for me.
Hughes was mostly an easy read and unless other writing about art is also like that, then I'm
happy to just look at the pictures on the wall or in the book. The cultural identity or gender of the
Quite simply, critics must be free to say a work is good or bad, and back up their views with arguments. As you say, even a negative review can create interest in an artist's work, as it provides a point of argument. To simply conform to pious orthodoxies is a dead loss for everyone. Conformists can't be critics.
Thank you for this clarity on a topic that has been made so contentious. I understand that an understanding of context adds to appreciation of a work but there is no logic in re-inventing characters. I do wonder if you are being hard on comics - fond memories of The Count of Monte Cristo as a Classics(?) comic, but I was about 10.
I once made the mistake of studying Indigenous literature for one term at USYD, under the ever watchful gaze of the left-of-Lenin, Dr Ivor Indyk (or as I liked to call him, Ivor Problem). If you think criticising Aboriginal art is difficult, without being called a white, privileged racist, try criticising anything written by an Aboriginal person. Some of the works we studied were so poorly written, that had they not been scribed by someone indigenous, they would have been relegated to the publishing editor's cylindrical filing cabinet. And yet, Ivor insisted that they rivalled the best of Tolstoy or Rimbaud.
Great piece.
I remember the days when the driving principle behind great creative work was "show, don't tell".
Too often these days, it seems to be "tell, don't show".
I went to an art exhibition recently where the titles and long, preachy descriptions of the paintings, seemed to be more important than the paintings themselves. Perhaps that was the point.
You'll only get my sympathy when, like me, you've been to an exhibition with labels telling us what Bono thinks about the work (!) But yes, interpretative labels are a real worry.
Down Boy! You're playing the little Aussie in your early comments on colour-blind casting.
And what a mistake to combine that with your thoughts on Blak art criticism. As a non-Indigenous commentator who has probably written more words about First Nations art and culture than any non-academic, I'll deal with that elsewhere.
But your problem with a Sri Lankan Hamlet is largely a matter of unfamiliarity.
Having been equally suprised by a Black actor playing a leading character in one of that very Scandinavian Ibsen's plays, I was assured by regular London theatre-goers that they hadn't noticed his colour, only his acting chops in the role. It's only unfamiliarity that breeds contempt, it seems.
BTW, empty Sydney cinemas for great opera performances from the US or Europe is a common experience - unless the opera's directed by Barrie Kosky!
I'm no fan of Barrie Kofsky either
Respectfully, I think you are missing the point that John is trying to make.
I partially credit Robert Hughes' Nothing If Not Critical collection of essays for getting my interest in art rolling in the early 90s. He just made the artists he was writing about and the work they were doing just seem really interesting. Even if he didn't like them. He made me want to go and check out their work in art museums and commercial galleries around the world.
I understand when an artist creates something it means something to them. But to be honest now
I'm mostly just interested in what the painting or sculpture or whatever does for me.
Hughes was mostly an easy read and unless other writing about art is also like that, then I'm
happy to just look at the pictures on the wall or in the book. The cultural identity or gender of the
writer doesn't really even come into it.
Quite simply, critics must be free to say a work is good or bad, and back up their views with arguments. As you say, even a negative review can create interest in an artist's work, as it provides a point of argument. To simply conform to pious orthodoxies is a dead loss for everyone. Conformists can't be critics.
Thank you for this clarity on a topic that has been made so contentious. I understand that an understanding of context adds to appreciation of a work but there is no logic in re-inventing characters. I do wonder if you are being hard on comics - fond memories of The Count of Monte Cristo as a Classics(?) comic, but I was about 10.
This leftist game of chopping up Shakespear is tied already..
I remember visiting friends in Sydney 30 years ago. A couple with a 14 year old son in high school.
They told me their son's school was staging Romeo and Juliette and had chosen a Chinese lad to play Romeo..
Who after all was Italian!