Barrett, Criticizing Photographs, Ch 1: About Art Criticism, 3rd ed, 2000

Criticism, Barrett says, is more than just expressing like or dislike.  He cites the work of American aesthetician Morris Weitz, who read several centuries worth of Hamlet criticism and discovered writers doing at least one of four things, sometimes all:  describing, interpreting, evaluating, and theorizing.  Criticism can be any one of these things in isolation, or any combination, and Weitz found many writers criticizing without judging.  Art historian Edmund Feldman felt evaluating (or judging) is one of the least important functions of criticism.  Criticism, as Barrett defines it, is informed discourse about art to increase understanding and appreciation of art. It should result in what philosopher Harry Broudy calls “enlightened cherishing,”  a sympathetic understanding of the art object and the aesthetic experience.  

Further classification schemes include academic Ralph Alexander Smith’s, in which critics engage in exploratory or argumentative aesthetic criticism.  The former relies largely on description and interpretation, seeking to communicate to the reader the critic’s aesthetic experience.  The critic may then engage in the latter, judging the work on how well it meets or fulfills specified aesthetic criteria.  NY Times photography critic Andy Gundberg suggests another model, in which criticism can be applied or theoretical, the former being more utilitarian and journalistic, the latter aesthetic and academic.

A number of approaches are profiled.  Abigail Solomon-Godeau sees her main task as asking questions.  Kay Larson says she approaches a writing task by first spending time with the object, as much as possible free from opinion or judgement, to have some kind of aesthetic encounter about which she can write.  Grace Glueck sees her role as an educator, informing the public about art. AD Coleman insists the critic maintain independence from the artist, that any work criticized should be available for public inspection, and should cover objects of contemporary relevance (not of historical importance).  Lucy Lippard argues for “advocacy criticism,” or political discourse that seeks to expose injustice and empower the disenfranchised. She contends that close contact with artists is more productive and informative than contact with publishers and galleries.  Barrett argues that since critics write for readers other than the artist, the critic should be something more than a promoter.  

Finally, on the value of criticism, Barrett notes first an increase of knowledge and appreciation of art.  Maurice Siegel observes that writing is a process of understanding, and that deeper awareness is usually the result of such a process.  Barrett observes, as well, that criticism forces us to spend more time with an object, implying this is of benefit to the artist, whose work typically merits only a glance.   

Barrett also draws quick profiles on the background of critics and where their criticism is published.  As this third edition of the book was published in 2000, 10 years after first publication, the references are entirely to print publications and a small circle of top tier critics writing for what were then national publications.  A revised version for 2013 would have to feature largely electronic publications, niche markets, and an international audience.  

Reading this chapter made me to reflect on my previous criticism, which I feel has been antagonistic rather than sympathetic.  Anger and scorn is so much easier to write than love and praise.  I think I need, as Larson suggests, to spend more time simply being with the work, trying to understand the creator’s intention and seeing the work through his or her eyes.  I’m thinking now of a piece I‘m writing about which I had essentially dismissed the work as competent but superficial.  I remember thinking I ought to not spend a lot of time writing about it, but now I wonder if I shouldn't give it some reconsideration.  

#