In Chapter 6 Barrett turns to the evaluation and judgement of photography. He uses these terms interchangeably to define “a what that demands a why.” Judgements are statements that demand reasons. Without them they seem like little more than preferences, about which no one would reasonably contend. They are arguments that require evidence. They can be persuasive, convincing, compelling - but not right or wrong.
Judgements, says Barrett, consist of appraisals based on reasons founded in criteria. Appraisals are about the merit of the work, reasons support an appraisal, and criteria are assumptions about rules and standards of what makes art good or bad. These are most often founded on definitions of art and aesthetics. They may be explicit or implicit.
Barrett observes that in casual art criticism, appraisals are quite common but reasons rare, whereas in more formal art discourse reasons are common and criteria often implied and not always easy to identify. That is, the critics’ ideas about art may be unexamined and assumed.
He goes on to offer four types of criteria based on common theories of art. These include:
Realism - Also known as mimesis, or mimeticism. Barrett notes Szarkowski offering the metaphor of window (realist) and mirror (expressionist). The job of the realist is to frame the universe as it is, rather than present an interpretation of it. He makes a claim no longer supported by physics, that for the realist the world exists independent of human attention. He then proceeds to a mystical claim, that reality contains intrinsic meaning and that in forming symbols to reflect reality, “the realist is joined to a larger intelligence.”
Expressionism - The individual experience of the artist is of primary importance, “intensity of expression is more crucial than accuracy of representation.” Traditionally this is known in photography as pictoralism.
Formalism - Insists on the primacy of art, of art for art’s sake, form above content, abstract above concrete. Considers the subject of art aesthetically irrelevant. Barrett notes the two major proponents of formalism, Fry and Bell, could not specify criteria for formal excellence. That is, what makes a good piece of formalist art?
Instrumentalism - Here the concern is with intent. What is art for? The assumption is that art has some purpose, however narrow that might be, and that there are causes greater than art itself. Art need not be formally excellent to serve a purpose. In fact, fulfilling a purpose might be considered the defining feature of good art. Barrett discusses photography in relation to AIDS and the gay community, in which many saw the purpose of art related to AIDS strictly in terms of instrumental values - in this case, saving lives.
Originality - Barrett chucks this into the Other bin, but it seems fairly important. If work is repetitive or derivative we have several unflattering adjectives to describe it - trite, cliche, unoriginal, ordinary, vapid, run-of-the-mill. We seem to appreciate novelty and spend a good part of our time searching for it, in whatever form. The media depends on the new to keep people coming back day after day, hour after hour. You can score a lot of critic points just for producing something novel.
Choosing Criteria: The Critic’s Dilemma - If the critic allows the work to suggest the criteria, he runs the risk of being perceived as having no important values. On the other hand, should he hold fast to certain criteria, he may begin to appear dogmatic.
Judgements are not so much right or wrong as they are reasonable, convincing, or enlightening. Critical judgements themselves can be judged according to whether or not, and how well, they increase our understanding and appreciation of artworks.
Barrett concludes the chapter with a review of some of the criticism of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography.
#
No comments:
Post a Comment