As an Ex owner of an Art Gallery with some other partners, and as a Graphic Designer... What I can say is that an Art Critic, does not always accomplishes with their main idea of what their role is and how thin may be to unify their personal opinion from, the art connoisseur, the Art graphic rules, that most time "Should Govern" an exquisite Piece or Art., embedding and analyzing time within any artistic piece.

Mostly they should master the theory, if not the practice, but at least know history about painting or any kind of artistic expression.

some are Passionate, which is useful but not the mostly important part of being an Art Critic, nor objective, an Art Critic should be a great analyzer, not only passionate people. Their main purpose is to Analyze the Art Work and with solid Principles, elaborate a well oriented Critic of the Art work in itself. the techniques, comparison with other art works, past art work, and be in capability to make statement, not about how they feel but, how this piece of Art will be able to affect the world....

or lives, the artist, their techniques, kinds of variations., styles.

Art can't be judge. But it may be analyzed. but people with great knowledge and skills.

Thanks for a great answer Fiorella, you touch on this but do you think that the art critic should be involved in the cultural aspects of art production and reception?

Parting from a systems theory-perspective, I would consider art critiques as part of the art system. More precisely, the part that decides what forms part of the art system. In Luhmann-language, it would be the art critiques (alongside other parties: other artists, gallerists and so on) that decide if a given piece of art actually is one, that is, if it fits the form of communication "art". So, they are a kind of gate-keeper that also are translating the structures of communication within the system to the surrounding social systems (known to us as "society").

Interesting Philipp, you do not mention the artists themselves as being part of determine ing what is accepted as art. Do you think they have a role? Carrier says that critics should open our eyes to new ways of understanding art. What do you think?

From Diderot's first art criticism tasks, there´s a lot of roles asumed by art critics: to teach, to promote, to destroy, to clear, to comment.....

The role of the art critic is to "possibilitate" the artist, to endow his work with potential for being aesthetically enjoyed. Picasso did a portrait of Gertrude Stein, the brother of a prominent art critic. Picasso commented, "Someone said it doesn´t look like her, but it WILL." Alice B. Tocklas quoted this in her autobiography, so clearly the remark was sanctioned by Gertrude herself.

José Ortega y Gasset felt that art criticism existed to make artworks comprehensible within a philosophy of culture. Hence his 1925 book "The Dehumanization of Art" characterized all avant-garde art as practicing the assassination of direct lived experience and the enthronement of aesthetic experience as such. He could not stomach Picasso´s cubism, but did approve the music of Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky and the theatre of Pirandello. Painting, he felt, as an artistic medium did not tolerate "dehumanization," whereas drama and music did.

Your last 2 posts Nelson are fascinating. Thank you.

I asked myself this question for a long time. I did not find better than Genette's answer: " the artist questions the universe, the critic questions the text".

But what happens when the artist takes the role of the critic like Ezra Pound or TS Eliot? I think a third dimension is opened. Notice for example how Ezra pound defines poetry: " words charged to the utmost possible" or  how Keats speaks about the poet's "negative capability."

To sum up: Those who cannot be artists ( only a few use their pens, only a few use their brushes etc.) write about art and those who cannot write about art. Those who cannot write about art either create throw away art or criticism.

The role of the art critic is that of interpreter within the limits of artistic/aesthetic concepts and values of the culture for which she writes as well as her own. Without an intimate understanding of Indian concepts and values regarding art, for example, an art critic writing in India will be unable to fulfill this role. An art critic writing about Indian art in Europe must be aware that European criteria are not synonymous with those in India.

Too many critics (and professors discussing student work in studio critiques) seem to be unable to accept criteria other than their own which they believe to be universal and eternal. They are not. If they were, we would not - in European art since antiquity - have a plethora of of writings on what constitutes a perfect work of art or what defines a work as art.

The critic has an obligation to acquaint herself with unfamiliar cultural ideas concerning art and/or investigate an individual artist's ideas and their expression in physical form (even when it is the idea itself  that is declared as art). In the end she reveals as much about herself as what she examines.

The question is very complex and in order to truly answer it we need to answer the following questions. What is a work of art? who is an art critic?

Without spending too much time and energy on being abstract and unclear I m going to give my own opinion: A work of art is an insane beautiful or ugly work that is full of sweat , bravery and charged to the utmost.

To my mind an art critic ia an artist who could not make himself heard in a world characterized by triviality and easy gain so he/she decides to take the suicidal job of saving some artists from the terrible pain of neglect he/she went through. Instead of using his/her blood as an ink (like real artists) he/she uses poisoning ink that will kill him/her one day.

Beyond opinions and likes and dislikes, there's a good bibliography on the subject. I foun particularely helpful "Art Critiscism in Its Institutions  in Ninteenth Century France, edited by Michel R. Orwicz ( Manchester U. P. )

Thank you Jorge.

Thank you for your very interesting answer Susi

Paul

You throw out some interesting questions, and this one has really grabbed my interest.

Criticism in general implies some sort of foreknowledge of what a work is attempting to achieve. and this applies across all disciplines. When I look at a student's work I provide constructive criticism against the background of the objectives of the exercise. This is not always (?seldom?) possible with art, particularly the art of the last 150 years or so (even before that - I defy anyone to give a coherent account of Giorgione's Tempest).  Art critics seem to have emerged in the 19th century, initially as arbiters of taste (a function previously fulfilled by the aristocracy in Europe, or their meritocratic equivalent in the states). But issues of aesthetics have long since become of lesser importance. 

Perhaps this is not a question that should be answered by experts in the field; after all, do they really need another's critical opinion other than to create a bone of contention?

The answer that I have liked most so far is Susi's, although Larry's also struck a nerve, because for me, as an untrained but interested art lover, what I look for most in a critic is the ability to contextualise an art work or exhibition. If this role is encompassed by the organiser of the exhibition, so much the better - and this applies to both public and commercial galleries. If it is an exotic exhibition then I need cultural insights into the artist's society and a background of art development within that society. I may not see what the critic sees in a particular piece, but it makes me pause to try and I often see an additional dimension that would not have been evident to me had I not tried. A recent example was the Anselm Kiefer exhibition at the RA in London last year. From an aesthetic point of view he is largely dead in the water and my previous experiences with occasional glimpses of his work had left me underwhelmed and puzzled. The layout of the exhibition and its critical and biographical elements completely changed my views and I came away with a greater understanding and appreciation of his work.

On the other hand some art will need a lot more than critical acclaim for me to change my views. To me a shark in a tank is still a shark in a tank no matter how hyphaluting the title of the piece!!!

Cheers

Chris Rout

Okay, I've left it five days now.

My previous response was written in haste when I was weary after a long working day, while awaiting a patient's recovery from anaesthesia [:-)]. Thinking about my answer while driving home I realised some mistakes I had made. First, my shallow comment about Anselm Kiefer; the image in my mind was of his construction of various items in a pyramid of lead sheets originally from the roof of Cologne cathedral. What I should have said about this was that I found some of his works aesthetically unpleasing, not imply that it was aesthetically unworthy. Second I may have misinterpreted the question, which was worded in such a way that caused confusion between the role of the Art Critic and the role of art criticism either the process (?"aesthesiology" if you like) or the publication of critical reviews.

I still maintain that the most important role of the Art Critic should be to educate somebody like me about different ways of viewing specific art objects and encourage us to pursue our interest further. For those who are prepared to take the journey and enjoy the ride, the philosophical treatment of aesthetics is an interesting (if somewhat circular or spiral at times) and rewarding subject. And in answer to your second question, Charles Taliaferro's Beginner's Guide to Aaesthetics.  I battle with Plato, Kant and Hegel (and disagree with a lot of what I have been told they said) I still haven't made up my mind about Dewey (I find his definition of art too broad, but certainly easily applicable perhaps because so). Baudelaire is heavy going but worth it, Ruskin is long-winded (I've only attempted one book) and I can't forgive him for the judgemental destruction of Turner's erotic works. I like Kenneth Clark, but haven't read any of his academic works. I look forward to reading Tolstoy's views on art, and Beardsley and Danto. Can you recommend anyone else?

Chris

Elena & Markovic, what about the internet, blogs, consumer tribes... where everyone has a voice and people (especially young people) trust their peers more than experts. Is the art critic dead?

Dear Markovic, I tend to agree with you. I hope it will survive as I believe there is the need for an informed outlook on art rather than the tyranny of popular opinion.

Dear Sudev

Do you not think there is a danger here of tyranny by the few rather than Paul's tyranny of the many? I agree that I find a critic's analysis, evaluation and interpretation of a work informative and useful and it strengthens my understanding, but I would not agree that I need a critic to reveal the work's beauty and strength (if by that you mean psychological impact). That is between the work itself (irrespective of intentions) and my self. 

Also, Paul, to what extent is popular opinion a spontaneously emergent phenomenon as opposed to transmitted attitudes generated by the few and passed on, amplifying/multiplying to the many? (I find Marković's image of "stampede winds" compelling).

I like Barrett's: Principles of Interpretation listed at the end of this short piece. Perhaps his book mentioned here would be worth looking at or perhaps contact the author of the piece.

https://www.uwgb.edu/malloyk/art_criticism_and_formal_analysi.htm

For Robert Hughes, the art critic must be as creative as the artist....and he was able to show it in his books. I like particularly his "Nothing If Not Critical: Essays on Art and Artists"

Dear Paul

Art criticism was invented by Charles Baudelaire in the second half of the 19 century and has been important ever since because of the problem of signification in modern and post modern art.

Art philosophy and esthetics have become the most differentiated and complex form of philosophy - and the thinkers of the late XX century turned towards art in stead of physics in having a touchstone

- so you're asking an important and difficult question. 

Is art critic a constituent of the art work?

And how stands critique to the art institutions nowadays?

Can there be art without criticism?

Can there be criticism without art?

best wishes

Willy

What should art critical writing attempt to achieve?

To deepen the experience of art if art has an ontological value. Else, if art is a pure aesthetic experience, the level of subjectivity of an emotional experience (which might even have nothing to do with the artwork, its continuity to the artist or even that of the viewer) might make the critical writing not so critical.

Who do you know of who has achieved this? Gadamer (in Truth and Method)

One of the art critic roles may be expanding the realm of possibility, through various even contradictory interpretations and comments which can persuade the artist to create new different works or start new career.

Art critic is primarily for viewers, but also for other participants in artistic practices, i.e. sponsors, other critics, philosophers, researchers in the humanities, etc. Criticism of art is similar to criticism in science, i.e. it consists in explaining (1) what is the contribution of a given artwork or art event to the development of artistic practices or (2) why this contribution is negligible or not detectable. The art critic enables viewers and others to perform their art-related practices consciously, especially related to the new art forms. Unfortunately, many art reviews are based on "individual art experiences or engagements" or the principles that are external to the art ("eco-activism", "vulgar-realism" etc.) which are not critical in the above sense.

You can look also at my today started discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_Performative_Art_Critical

Perhaps is to show the complicated metaphorical entity of the work of art, resulted by composing selected fragments from different experiences, through them abstract and concrete things are understood.

Here is an example of philosophical criticism of contemporary art. A paper in QMR. The Theory of Soclal Practices drives the interpretative process in this study. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QMR-05-2022-0084/full/pdf?title=transforming-practices-of-co-creating-values-in-a-contemporary-art-exhibition&fbclid=IwAR2Uj2Kxj1OFM15sMy3I9Bg-9VoOfBUA75cudbGsMC0j1jlWwrZm-nxQG6g