Nature of Criticism - Literature review Example

Nature of Criticism [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Nature of Criticism Introduction In describing the nature of criticism, Attoe (1976) points out that criticism is primarily concerned with interpreting, judging, prescribing and describing an object of interest. Such an observation is in agreement with Weitz’s (1962) remark, which promotes the idea that critics do many things when they talk about an object: including comparing, observing, interpreting, analysing, evaluating and explaining. Based on these definitions, it can be argued that criticisms are for the most part about the critic rather than the object being criticised. Indeed, several theorists have appeared as promoting this perspective while attempting to explain the nature of criticism (Weitz 1962; Attoe 1976). However, Hausman (1996) seems to be pursuing a different perspective when he elaborates that criticism should deal with the objects being criticised. This essay examines the two perspectives concomitantly to explain the nature of criticism, In an attempt to demonstrate the nature of criticism, Attoe (1976) identified three methods of criticism, including prescriptive, descriptive and interpretive criticism. Prescriptive criticism is based on belief in things that are outside the realm of the environment as well as the assessment of the environment itself (Attoe 1976). Prescriptive methods of criticism are primarily based on the object rather than the critic. On the other hand, Attoe (1976) posits that the key feature of interpretive criticism is that it is significantly personal. This means that the critic acts as an interpreter for the viewer. Further, the critic does not assume a doctrine, claim to be objective nor influence the perspective of others to make them assume a similar perspective. In which case, the critic can construct a work of his own work of art around the object of his criticism, as a result transforming it. Either way, Attoe (1976) observed that a critic can still provide a new perspective on the object. Descriptive criticism, aims to illuminate the facts that are represented by an individual’s encounter with the environment. Based on Attoe’s (1976) argument, this is on condition that what actually happened is known if the art or building has to be understood. Here again, emphasis is placed on the object. Unlike prescriptive or interpretive criticism, descriptive criticism is not aimed at judging or interpreting. Rather, it aims at enabling people to see an object (Attoe 1976). In explaining the etymological nature of criticism, Attoe (1976) observed that the term criticism is derived from verbs that concern the ‘making,’ ‘separating’ or ‘sifting’ distinctions. In which case, judgements may be part of the sifting processes suggested by Attoe (1976) although it may not be necessarily involved. Under this situation, the critic is put at the centre of description in describing the nature of criticism. Hausman (1996) argued that critics need to link knowledge as well as understanding of the traditions of art into their interpretations or judgement. This means that criticism need to portray art in its broadest context, from the point of perceiving the work to the past and present forms, or forces, that give a piece of work its significance or meaning. It is therefore perceivable that criticism is not strictly a negative activity or that the responses need to be wholly defensive (Attoe 1976). Hausman (1996) posited that criticism must not treat each work as though it represents all art. This implies that generalisation of a work of art concerning a period of art or all of the artworks, serves to merely provide background material for understanding a unique and individual human effort in the ultimate. It can further be perceived that criticism should be specific about the aspects of an object of features that it interprets, describes, reviews or prescribes. Hence, it should give precedence to details rather than on generalising aspects. Towards this end, it is critical to note that the effectiveness of criticisms may be affected by a number of factors (Attoe 1976). Hausman (1996) observed that words can indeed serve as the tools or traps of critics. In which case, criticism should not be trapped with the nature or the words or language used. For instance, it should not be confused with poetry, where words or language is used to create a veil that envelops and confuses a work of art (Kahn 1956). In essence, what a critic can consider as a poem by the virtue of features of the poems is often not concerned with showing that the features are primary significant and relate to the whole. However, in modern criticism, features that determine a poem as a type does not determine it to be a poem (Moore 1970). Based on these assumptions, language should only serve as a tool that serves to show that the capabilities or certain features of an object that the critic wished to be understood. In understanding the nature of criticism, it is therefore critical to observe that, like poetry, they are vulnerable to traps. Since poetry is susceptible to the poet’s attitudes or inner perceptions, inner perceptions and attitudes also stand out as the traps of criticism (Kahn 1956). Indeed, the efficiency of criticism depends on the efficiency and accuracy of the critics. In Brook’s (1973) concern, the efficiency and the integrity of the critic is inspired by the anxiety that they should judge the works of art appropriately, or the concern that they have to report their inner experiences truthfully and accurately. In any case, it is clear that in other areas that involve perception, the inner accuracy of this kind is not necessary or satisfactory for right judgment, assuming that the right judgment is determined objectively. This also implies that criticism can as well be categorised as behaviour and therefore should be seen like other behaviours with regard to motives, intentions, fears and habits. Based on Attoe’s (1976) perspective, the most conceivable or common form of criticism of art objects are the verbal assessments, such as of buildings, published in professional journals or newspapers, or perhaps the remarks made by teachers in design studios about students’ work. When a critic makes or sifts distinction, he is confronted by inherent biases. In addition, the criticism is limited to his personal conception of the significance or role of the critic. In which case, criticism is vulnerable to inherent biases. However, detecting the particular conception of a role of a critic is not simple. Weitz (1962) discusses that although critics will rarely declare they are biased in some considerable aspect, it is critical if the significance of criticism should materialise rather than intimidate. At this point, Attoe (1976) proposes that criticism should invoke purposeful response rather than merely serve to sift or make distinctions. Criticism is further pointed out as involving an account of the art object and evaluation of its merit. Hausman (1996) noted that under this situation, the critic is concerned with apprehension, judging the quality of work, interpreting work in its personal content and articulating the value judgements with clarity and discipline. This description is greatly comprehensive as it encompasses the different natures of criticism, such as understanding, interpreting and judging an objective. Indeed, different perceptions can be developed based on this description. Here again, in explaining the nature of criticism, emphasis is placed on the critic. Based on Attoe’s (1976) assumptions, criticism is comprehensive and varied. Indeed, such an assumption minimises the potential to ignore a critique since it does not address what should be perceived as the most relevant issues. For instance, a student may need a technical criticism of a design while the teacher-critic offers doctrinal criticism. In which case, a designer with a good understanding of the methods of criticism is likely to respond with far-reaching implications. According to Attoe (1976), critical commentaries in most cases seldom correspond to a single concern. Rather, they will in most cases reflect a locus of concerns and accompanying methods. Criticism is separate from review or reporting of news about certain personalities or art events. Hausman (1996) explains that criticism should not be confused with journalism. For instance, newsworthy events should be reported. In addition, exhibitions should be listed. The real difficulty however emerges when the process of reviewing occurs on a critical task, such as evaluating art objects within a predetermined format in terms of style and length. In which case, listing of exhibitions using a couple of lines with a commentary to include the name of the artist, the date, price and place of exhibition does not constitute criticism. Criticism must comprehensively be engaged with the realities of work of art that has been created. In retrospect, criticism is not journalism and is therefore not concerned with feature writing, speculations or public relations. Further, it does not concern fabrication of art events that make for interesting reading. Inevitably, criticism is also concerned with the use of systems and categories to evaluate and describe an idea (Hausman 1996). Theorists have noted that under this situation, critics need to have the knowledge of creating defensive barriers against new or innovative ideas and forms through the use of values drawn from a system of truth about what is “art,” and “good” and “beautiful.” Based on these perspectives, it is perceivable that criticism should promote or be open to the possibility of innovations. Moore (1970) however advises that this does not however justify a reason to assume that the forms by which artists recreate works for analysis purposes can claim any sort of merit separate from the original creative possesses. Conclusion In explaining the nature of criticism, two competing perspectives are fronted. These include that criticism is concerned with the critic or the object being criticised. In any case, both perspectives suggest that criticism need to portray art in its broadest context, based on different perspectives with an aim of giving a piece of work or an object significance and meaning. Further, criticism is not strictly a negative activity or that the responses need to be wholly defensive, rather it ensures effective description, interpretation and prescription of an object. References Attoe, W 1976, "Methods of Criticism and Response to Criticism," Architecture Criticism and Evaluation, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp.20-21 Brook, D 1973, "Art Criticism: Private Experiences and Public Objects Donald," Leonardo, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 103-108 Freedman, W 1980, "Aesthetic Relevance," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Autumn, 1980), pp.79-80 Hauman, J 1966, "Journalism and Art Criticism," Art Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.18-20 Kahn, S 1956, "Towards An Organic Criticism," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Sep., 1956), pp. 58-73 Moore, A 1970,"Formalist Criticism and Literary Form," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 21-31 Weitz, M 1962, "Reasons in Criticism," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 429-437 Read More