Print

Print


I'm not commenting on recent discussions, but I'm slightly puzzled by this, Seamus:

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Séamas Cain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Alec, and other British & Irish poets,

2.)  I have always been amazed by the degree to which most poets,
artists, composers, novelists, etc., etc., would rather be ART CRITICS
than poets, artists, composers, etc.  And thus, from time to time,
everywhere we end up with these odd and contrived "discussions."
Usually, such "art criticism" is vulgar, élitist, boorish, and stupid.

It is our DUTY as artists to DO art, to MAKE art.  We should leave to
the future the determination of what art has been most meaningful,
what art has been important or lasting.  (Indeed, I think it would be
preposterous and goofy to do otherwise.)

I don't understand why talking about art is inimical to making art. Yes, discussion can indeed be "vulgar, élitist, boorish, and stupid", but it can equally be informed, generous, inclusive and stimulating. I don't know how you can make art without some kind of critical sense at work, whether it's part of a discussion or not; critical discussion and art making are hardly mutually exclusive. And collaboration of any kind is frankly impossible (or just doomed) without it.

x

--
Editor, Masthead:  http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com 
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com