After a tough week of strain and stress, I take a lot of pleasure from the unpredictability of these shows, so that was a bit of a bummer.
JONATHAN L. DAVIS
Los Angeles
Criticism and cleverness
Sebastian Smee’s recent review of the deCordova Biennial was over the top: a boy showing off, at the expense of others (“True good works amid false steps,’’ g, Jan. 27).
If he feels, as he says, that he has better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than to view an art performance in a museum, then perhaps he is in the wrong profession.
I find his writing so pompous, so full of HIMSELF, that I can barely get through a review. He consistently states, “I liked . . .’’ or “My favorite . . .’’ Isn’t art criticism about more than what you like or dislike?
But it’s his cruelty in the name of a fancy turn of phrase (his metaphor about butt acne notwithstanding) that most makes my skin crawl. He gets a charge out of making fun of people. He is, as he described himself in his own words at his former newspaper, a bully on the playground:
“Just as children attracted to the police force are, naturally, weaklings desperate to wield power and exact revenge, critics are bookish nerds with bullying instincts. . . .
“And, of course, we’re hobbled by jealousy. Don’t doubt it for a second: critics envy artists. Inside every critic is a painter, photographer or sculptor fantasising about the opening of their own sell-out show.’’ (The Australian, April 26, 2008)
So the question is, what does this do for art? This kind of “criticism’’ by humiliation only discourages risk-taking, which we know is the essential component in creating groundbreaking work. If Smee could spend more time looking thoughtfully and less time writing reviews “coddled in cleverness’’ (his words) we might all learn something.
RACHEL PERRY WELTY Gloucester MacDowell Colony Fellow 2009- 10
Growing a Third Ear
