To me, those 4 pillars can be viewed as different aspects of one pillar: context, which (as you imply) maybe shouldn’t even be a pillar. It’s more of a perception, one of many. An example is the introduction of electric light in the earliest 20th century — the way it dramatically changed the way visual art is rendered. That little historical nugget of context deeply changed how I perceive art on an emotional (not intellectual) level. I guess I’m suggesting don’t throw out context as one means for understanding art; it can be a bridge as often as it is a barrier.
YES. I have had a very ambivalent relationship with art criticism and writing for a long time exactly because of those conventions. They are tiresome. They miss the mark. They feel like academic masturbation at times and as purely performative at others (speaking generally here). I am new on Substack and still catching up on your MFAH 100 project, but I love what I've read so far. Happy to hear of this shift and looking forward to more.
Your intention is spot on! Those four topics can offer structure-a way to quantify the artists work, however, the deeper meaning/reflections can be missed (or overlooked).
Oh, the freedom to write what YOU want! Whether the big THEY think it's the way writing ought to be, or not. And whether or not they think it's a little "kitschy." A very nice thing about being older and not needing to do it for money is having that freedom to do it exactly as we want to do it - or as close as we can get to that vision of the way WE want it to be. When I was going on about writing and publishing things that folks might not like/think were proper, a friend reminded me that the potential readers would either read the pieces or not, their choice. How freeing it was to realize that they have freedom too. And the arbitrary 100 words - well I've found the arbitrary limit liberating too - though I tend to set the number a little higher - 1200 to 1500 - my comfort spot. For me it's writing in parts, toward a larger whole - a liberating concept that I had my eyes (and imagination) opened to by Write More by Simon K. Jones. Though, of course, Dickens and lots of others wrote in "parts" too - I'd just never realized I could make it a creative tool for ME as well. For decades (more than most now alive have been alive) I didn't think I could write what I thought I wanted to, because I was thinking of the whole 80,000 words I though I had to write. And I could only do my 1200 to 1500. What do you know, 53 to 66 of those, and I have my whole 80,000 - no problem. I can do that! And if THEY don't think it's very good, oh well ...
Writing about art vs being an art writer. Brilliant
Enjoying your work, glad to find you. Thanks.
Thank you!
To me, those 4 pillars can be viewed as different aspects of one pillar: context, which (as you imply) maybe shouldn’t even be a pillar. It’s more of a perception, one of many. An example is the introduction of electric light in the earliest 20th century — the way it dramatically changed the way visual art is rendered. That little historical nugget of context deeply changed how I perceive art on an emotional (not intellectual) level. I guess I’m suggesting don’t throw out context as one means for understanding art; it can be a bridge as often as it is a barrier.
YES. I have had a very ambivalent relationship with art criticism and writing for a long time exactly because of those conventions. They are tiresome. They miss the mark. They feel like academic masturbation at times and as purely performative at others (speaking generally here). I am new on Substack and still catching up on your MFAH 100 project, but I love what I've read so far. Happy to hear of this shift and looking forward to more.
Your intention is spot on! Those four topics can offer structure-a way to quantify the artists work, however, the deeper meaning/reflections can be missed (or overlooked).
Thanks for sharing a window into your thoughts!
And we enjoy those100 words as well! Thank you.
Oh, the freedom to write what YOU want! Whether the big THEY think it's the way writing ought to be, or not. And whether or not they think it's a little "kitschy." A very nice thing about being older and not needing to do it for money is having that freedom to do it exactly as we want to do it - or as close as we can get to that vision of the way WE want it to be. When I was going on about writing and publishing things that folks might not like/think were proper, a friend reminded me that the potential readers would either read the pieces or not, their choice. How freeing it was to realize that they have freedom too. And the arbitrary 100 words - well I've found the arbitrary limit liberating too - though I tend to set the number a little higher - 1200 to 1500 - my comfort spot. For me it's writing in parts, toward a larger whole - a liberating concept that I had my eyes (and imagination) opened to by Write More by Simon K. Jones. Though, of course, Dickens and lots of others wrote in "parts" too - I'd just never realized I could make it a creative tool for ME as well. For decades (more than most now alive have been alive) I didn't think I could write what I thought I wanted to, because I was thinking of the whole 80,000 words I though I had to write. And I could only do my 1200 to 1500. What do you know, 53 to 66 of those, and I have my whole 80,000 - no problem. I can do that! And if THEY don't think it's very good, oh well ...