[KurtS]

Mate, when it comes to appreciating art, don't blindly trust the experts. Go with your gut. Like what you like.

Yes, avoid learning, understanding, listening and reading. Just stay where you are.

hehe

[Stinkie7000]

People usually take offense because the art critic tneds to project his own POV on the art with qualities that were perhaps were never intended by the artist.

It's a critic's job to write what he thinks. A critic cannot be objective, as that approach is firmly at odds with the very core of his job. A critic is not a reporter. Readers are supposed to know this.

And it's quite easy to be non-polarized or indifferent to what your viewing. That doesn't mean having no thoughts, ....you simply witness the level of expression being exhibited with absolutely no attachments to the concepts of good or bad. It's called appreciation and recognition of the process.

There's three things important in art: results, results and results. A process can be neither framed nor put on a pedestal.

Mate, when it comes to appreciating art, don't blindly trust the experts. Go with your gut. Like what you like.

Yes, avoid learning, understanding, listening and reading. Just stay where you are. hehe

Give me some credit now. That's not what I meant. I meant that just assuming the experts are right, might not be the way to go.

[ivox3]

People usually take offense because the art critic tends to project his own POV on the art with qualities that were perhaps were never intended by the artist.

It's a critic's job to write what he thinks. A critic cannot be objective, as that approach is firmly at odds with the very core of his job. A critic is not a reporter. Readers are supposed to know this.

Precisely, ...but that assumes that the readers are all operating with that principle -- which they never have and never will.
So the critic should expect the creation of new enemies.

And it's quite easy to be non-polarized or indifferent to what your viewing. That doesn't mean having no thoughts, ....you simply witness the level of expression being exhibited with absolutely no attachments to the concepts of good or bad. It's called appreciation and recognition of the process.

There's three things important in art: results, results and results. A process can be neither framed nor put on a pedestal.

Who cares what you or the public receives from a given work -- you miss the point, .. the process is for the artist and no one else. Results? ...who's measuring stick? ...who's definitions? If the world was absent of all critics tomorrow, ...nothing would change. Remove the artists and this place sucks.

Mate, when it comes to appreciating art, don't blindly trust the experts. Go with your gut. Like what you like.

Yes, avoid learning, understanding, listening and reading. Just stay where you are. hehe

Give me some credit now. That's not what I meant. I meant that just assuming the experts are right, might not be the way to go.

[Hervé]

I feel she's not displaying any true artistic vison yet (!).

My first thought aswell, but then I had a look into her biography, exhibitions list and bibliography... looks like a lot of qualified people and galleries have other points of view...

You kidding? You gonna let other people make up you mind for ya? Mate, when it comes to appreciating art, don't blindly trust the experts. Go with your gut. Like what you like.

Take it from an expert.

The experts... haha... you're right ...

all tastes are permitted.. like you, some people said Rembrandt was bad because it looked like careless painting.. and what about Picasso..? ... naaahhh paints like a kid...

... so you see... it's all relative... very subjective suject... but you coming there to tell us..nahhh not good (expert mode) and then saying don't trust the experts... how can we trust you..? hehe.. ok ok, we don't have to trust you... but you gave us your opinion.. and so we can also give our opinion..

I see what you mean though... no problem...

all painters in the 17/18 c. were considered just like monkey.. they just reproduce what they see..

I reckon it is easier to aint from a photo.. but in this case.. it's really well done !

Chris has like always in this kind of discussion some very clever view... !... and I appreciate it..

[Stinkie7000]

all tastes are permitted.. like you, some people said Rembrandt was bad because it looked like careless painting..

Did I say Rembrandt's bad? Now, that I'd never do.

[Hervé]

I know don't worry... hehe.. I was trying to say when Rembrandt was alive, in his own time , people did not really liked his apparent careless brush strokes..