4 comments on “The Way I Sees It, Is A Bit Different

  1. Top ten lists are kind of silly because everyone is going to disagree with them. But I guess that is the nature of critique of the arts, and what makes art so great is what makes it so hard to write about. I did really like Wayne Alan Brenner’s list, maybe because his tastes are more like mine, but also because he included theater and he gave shout outs to events and galleries that are consistently bringing it, and also to Jamie Panzer’s show which was solid. His show at Big Medium was like a breath of fresh air to me as was Jules Buck Jones’ show at Champion and it is a crime to me that no one mentioned that one. As for the conflict of interest, that is tough. I am quite the contrarian though, so I welcome healthy disagreements.

    • I really enjoy Jules Buck Jones’ work. But his gallery shows always make me feel like he is holding back. Like he needs to cut loose when he is with his Boozefox buddies.

      • This was my first introduction to his work, so I am just taking it at face value. Although if he did let loose a little more that would be even more amazing, I have to assume that it probably has a lot to do with venue. In the space of a commercial gallery, you have to give them something commercial and I think something that fits in with their aesthetic. They do seem to value their white there…..

  2. I wasn’t so annoyed that there were non-Texas shows listed. Except the odds of the reader saying, “yeah, that was good.” were slim to none. The thing about “friends” and criticism is that I have seen/heard plenty of great art from people who are jerks. Likewise, there are some genuinely great people, who’s work leaves me unchanged. If I have beers with someone, I am going to know a lot about their artwork beyond what is physically there. If I read a lot about someone, scroll through interviews with them, I am going to come to their artwork with a base knowledge. There is essentially nothing wrong with this, but don’t act like the “art stands on its own.” Because once you know all that other stuff, you have no idea what the art would be like without it. And it makes it bad criticism to attempt to compare this artwork to the artwork of the person I don’t know, don’t read up on, don’t pick their brain. I think that a critic should learn as much as they can about an artist that they review as possible (it’s called research) but should make this a rule for all the work that they review. And if they like the artist too, that’s human nature. Of course people who know an artist’s whole body of work are going to be able to understand the placement of new work in it. If I only know the work in front of me, it is all I have to go on. Apples to oranges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s