Hacker News Reader

Comment by Clewza313 | Hacker News Reader

I have conflicted feelings about this. Is it really a "mistake" if you don't understand some subtle context about artwork that would not be clear to the casual reader either? Or, as an art critic, is it your responsibility to be aware of all these subtexts, so you can educate your readers about them?

More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking and accessible? If a piece of art resonates only with people who share the artist's context (like the mentioned punning pronunciation of "boy" in a given dialect), can a critic lacking that context review it, or a viewer appreciate it?

View on HN

> I have conflicted feelings about this. Is it really a "mistake" if you don't understand some subtle context about artwork that would not be clear to the casual reader either? Or, as an art critic, is it your responsibility to be aware of all these subtexts, so you can educate your readers about them?

I think this broadly depends on what role you view art critique as having. In the opening paragraph, the author does a great job (IMO) of outlining his perspective:

"As a critic, I’ll suggest that I can sensitize my readers and listeners to what they didn’t see or grasp or apprehend when they witnessed the same art or performance."

If you view critique as a way of exploring new perspectives, subtle context can be one of the ways in which a critic can help add to the conversation surrounding a work. While it's not necessarily a critic's responsibility to understand every piece of background info at every moment, it's also understandable that a critic might view their own omission of a particular piece of context as a failure to provide additional insight that they believe they might have been able to contribute in a review, especially they view the goal of their critique to be that act of "sensitizing."

> More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking and accessible?

Part of what Rodney might argue here is that it's not necessary for art itself to be striking/accessible, but a good critic can make such art accessible by virtue of dedicating themselves to the understanding of "subtle contexts."

> If a piece of art resonates only with people who share the artist's context (like the mentioned punning pronunciation of "boy" in a given dialect), can a critic lacking that context review it, or a viewer appreciate it?

I'd argue that context isn't a strict requirement for appreciation, but that it can often be a useful way to construct additional meaning, to find additional appreciation for a work beyond the initial appraisal. It's different for everyone, but I love art and art critique, and these are the ways of thinking that I've personally found bring me the most joy/fulfillment when thinking about art.

Context is not everything. But it is a lot in how we think about images.

Da Vinci’s extravagance of Il Cenacolo was justified for its subject matter. When the fresco is falling apart and despite the technical sophistication of Leonardo’s hand, the meaning rides on nearly two millennia of words about the last supper of Jesus in Christian narrative.

Those familiar with the narrative and the painting title can’t unsee the context. Or contexts…there’s no single viewpoint.

I look at Cappa’s D-day pictures.

https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/conflict/robert-capa-d...

How I feel about them is tied to a lifetime. And the lifetime of my parents and grandparents generations as I experienced those people.

But still I have to be told that these are pictures from Omaha Beach. And it must be “Omaha Beach” because “June at the right bank of the Duove River” is the wrong context for interpretation.

  To make something beautiful 
  should be enough. 
  It isn’t. 
  It should be.

  Landscape with a Blur of Conquerors
     Richard Siken

https://poets.org/poem/landscape-blur-conquerors

I think his “boy” mistake was not getting the context that was obvious to the work’s main audience, Jamaicans, when he was reviewing a show as a (diaspora) Jamaican. Which I agree is a very forgivable mistake and probably nobody outside of social media would take him to task on it.

To the broad point, as an artist and also a collector I say emphatically No. Some of the best art is subtle and requires a lot of engagement to “get.” The striking, like the large, is often overrated.

As with any work, the great artworks do both. They are both immediately striking to laypeople yet also intrigue those deep in the art world.

Why shouldn't they know? Are you concerned that it is too high a standard? They are professionals. When you hire a mathematics tutor, shouldn't the tutor understand the subtitles of math? When you hire an engineer, shouldn't they know the subtleties of the issue they were hired to handle?

> More broadly, does great art have to be immediately striking and accessible?

Art can't be required to be anything at all, and as soon as you impose requirements, some artist will no doubt find a way to challenge them (like good hackers ;) :D ). But of course, much of it isn't immediately striking and accessible.

I get the question, but first, we can't make blanket statements about it: "can" someone appreciate it? Who knows? It depends on the artwork, the person, how much time they have, maybe the lighting and the information they find (including from the critic), etc. People aren't prisoners of their contexts - we all are necessarily very limited by our short lives, but we can learn. I know more about the world than what I've directly experienced. The choreographer Mark Morris said,

"I don't think everything's for everybody. I like that people specialize and have specific interests. I like the idea that people remain curious; I like to say that my work is not for everyone, it's for anyone."

One major effect or benefit of much artwork is to see the world through someone else's eyes - someone with great vision, observation, and skill in conceiving and communicating what they see, who has thought deeply and worked for many hours on how to say this one thing.

You can (if you wish) forget what you bring into the room - the artist doesn't know you, they didn't create this with you in mind - and dive into a totally alien point of view and personality, one that does not respect or understand you at all, one that isn't pulling punches for your sensitivities. It's a personal conversation with this creative, thoughtful person, someone creative, has thought deeply, and expresses themselves in highly creative ways - but who is completely unaware of you. You can stand right next to them, observe them closely, walk around them, explore, leave and come back, stalk them (the artwork) obsessively, and it's not even rude. It's a good way to get out of yourself; it's space where you can be deeply, disturbingly challenged, and consider and reconsider, in perfect external safety without anyone knowing, if you wish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com