Using Art Criticism
by Pam Mathews, University of Toledo
“Why do I have to write in art class? This isn’t English.”
This is a common question that arises each semester as I introduce the idea of
written art criticism to my visual art students. Criticism to a student means
negative comments from an authority figure (the teacher) regarding the student’s
artwork. Students are surprised to learn that art criticism is a way to exercise
higher order thinking skills while investigating and critiquing their own or
others’ works of art.
Visual art critics view their primary purpose as conveying understanding of a
work of art, educating the viewer. When students can take ownership for their
learning by educating themselves through accumulation of basic knowledge of the
visual arts and application of art critique methods for the visual arts, their
studio products improve correspondingly. Their understanding of their own and
others’ artwork provides opportunities for aesthetic visual experiences and
transformations.
Visual Literacy – Visual Culture
Marilyn Wyman (2003) emphasizes the importance of visual literacy in her writing
guide for art students. Wyman feels that we must acknowledge and take advantage
of our adaptations as primarily visual creatures. Today, more than ever, we are
barraged by a plethora of images. Mass media using digital technology dominates
the leisure time of our lives. As visual learners, we adapt by developing even
greater discrimination in our scanning and filtering of visual
images/information. We understand that we use more than physiology to see and
comprehend the world around us. The idea of psychology as the basis of
perception was discovered and investigated during the nineteenth century.
Sturken and Cartwright (2001) and Mirzoeff ((1999) emphasize that the resulting
research reveals the impact of visual imagery on shaping, not just reflecting
our perceptions of our world.
Daily analytic experiences with our environment are part of our enculturation.
These skills create correct interpretations that guide our behaviors and
responses in our culture and can create misinterpretations when interacting with
other cultures until we have become encultured in the new environment. Our split
second scanning of an image and arriving at a meaning for that image occurs
because of physiology and practice – accumulating knowledge and experiencing the
subsequent connections.
Art criticism provides a framework for that practice. It enables students to
experiment with the new cultures/environments that an artwork represents. A
piece of art represents the artist, his psyche, his personal culture and
history, his experiences with art history and the place of his artwork in
relation to art historical context, his social context and the relationship of
his art to the social context, etc. By writing about the artwork, the student is
able to educate himself and his reader about this artwork in a concrete manner
that facilitates a greater degree of visual literacy.
Art Production Versus Art Writing
Art production was the main focus of art education for many years. The inclusion
of aesthetics including art criticism in the art education curriculum has
evolved slowly. Widely known, everyday evidence indicates a continuing slow
evolution today.
Today colleagues argue that students come down to the art room for a change from
what they do in other classrooms in the building. They don’t want to write in an
art class. Art criticism involves time on the teacher’s part and a commitment to
learning something that we receive little training for during fine arts training
or teacher certification programs in college. We have no in-services regarding
art criticism offered. Colleagues say that the problem with assigning critiques
is that if you have students do critiques you have to grade them. Don’t work so
hard. Make it easy. Do studio work and assign projects that take up time once
introduced and make assessment easy – no art criticism, rubrics or complicated
grading procedures that students don’t understand anyway. This is a common
environment and attitude left in the wake of the studio model to Discipline
Based Art Education movement.
In the past, child centered art classrooms supported use of studio work as the
ultimate of learning tools. If students received instruction in art history it
was because the student felt a need to explore the work of an artist whose work
was similar to that of the student. Art criticism evolved from open critiques of
student work. Formal art criticism was rarely addressed. Little art critical
student writing resulted.
According to Henry Sayre (2002), during the 1980’s Dorothy Edwards’ Drawing on
the Right Side of the Brain became a popular excuse for artists to abandon left
brain writing skills. From Edward’s research, artists deduced that writing was
not a component of the right brain artist persona. Being right brained and thus
non-verbal, artists were meant to produce art, not write. To Edwards’ credit,
she did insist that if one half of a brain was great, then one whole brain was
even better and that left brain writing and language skill development were
indeed important acquisitions for artists. Being deemed more attractive (Because
of a lack of responsibility, perhaps?) the old right brain artist persona
persists.
As the result of studies conducted in the 1970’s, the conflict regarding what
should be taught as art “was resolved by locating art education within its
parent disciplines; away from a psycho-biological emphasis towards a
socio-cultural explanatory framework” (Swift, 1995 in Critical Studies and
Modern Art, 1996, p.9). Discipline Based Art Education appeared in the 1980’s,
offering a meaty knowledge based alternative to art production alone. The four
prong approach to art education remains the preferred model today. Along with
art production students are exposed to the art historical, aesthetic and art
critical aspects of projects. This approach encourages teaching art with a focus
on greater depth of knowledge and use of higher order thinking skills. Critical
writing offers opportunities and responsibilities to teachers and students who
are experiencing the advantages of centuries of accumulated knowledge regarding
art and art criticism.
The Pedigree of Art Criticism
Art theory has existed since antiquity, with the Greeks defining three separate
approaches to art. They explored art through objective, subjective and
interactive aesthetics with the goal to reach objective standards rather than
search for human values. The objective-subjective paradox resulted in a hybrid
addressing the interaction of the two approaches.
Meanwhile, art criticism emerged in Greece around the third century B.C.,
concentrating on the relationship between works of art and artistic
personalities. Styles of art arose from studies of artworks and artists with
criticism revealing “pictorial effects as well as artistic genius.” (Cromer,
1990, 13).
From antiquity through the early Medieval Ages emotions and ideas were
universally valued in art. Artworks educated a largely illiterate public. Art
critics were revered because of their abilities to dig deeper into cherished
artworks and share informed judgments. As medieval aesthetics experienced
spiritualism, intuition became the vehicle to direct revelations from God.
Empathy was controlled by the good and beautiful and these became the qualities
that critics associated with the best art.
Humanism, unveiled in the years of the Renaissance celebrated mankind through a
union of God and nature. Concurrently, Leon Battista Alberti’s art critical
writings influenced artists and the Humanistic movement, proving that culture
could be molded by art and aesthetics. His writings drew attention to the roles
of art production, doctrine, history and criticism in culture and emphasized the
importance of the spectator and his/her perceptions.
During the sixteenth century, art theory became more decisive. Art production,
art history, art doctrine and art criticism became recognized as separate but
related arenas of art. Scholars addressed philosophical doctrine, historical
events, artists’ lives and critical approaches. With the high Renaissance
yielding a return to spiritualism, the concept of imagination elevated an artist
to the position of divine translator, transforming abstract ideas into physical
presence. Art criticism established absolutes in tastes, beliefs and conducts
and promoted the abstract ideal of moral beauty. “God inspired art, artists were
preachers, and critics were those who could interpret divine ideas.” (Cromer,
1990, 18).
Adding to the aesthetics of moral spiritualism, mechanistic criticism arose at
this time responding to the new sentiment movement. Scientific intellect,
spiritualistic will and the sensibility of refined feelings combined to create
an affective response to the sensory qualities of a work of art. The theory was
based on the belief that the search for truth required artistic genius, talent.
Renaissance Mannerism, considered true Renaissance criticism consisted of a more
formal acknowledgement of iconography. The symbolic aspects of art rather than
what was directly observable were most important. This movement hinted at the
emergence of modern art criticism, the first “art for art’s sake”. Taking this
movement further, a Mannerist painter who became blind, Gian Paolo Lomazzo
developed a three part syncretic approach to critical viewing: doctrine
(discoveries of artists throughout history), practice (personal preferences) and
iconography (literary treatment of art subjects). Lomazzo’s greatest
contribution to art criticism was his system for extracting abstract concepts
from art. Lomazzo interpreted what an artist had accomplished in an artwork
instead of trying to impose his instruction on an artist’s creative process.
Seventeenth century aesthetics was marked by a variety of conflicting theories
and classification of art styles. Utilizing analysis and interpretation of
techniques and content of artworks, Scanelli and Scaramuccia, two seventeenth
century critics conducted critical discussions of art that included historical
information as well as art doctrine that emphasized schools of style. A concern
for taste, a wide variety of art and aesthetics and criticism based on taste
more than scheme led art critic Roger de Piles to propose that taste was
intuitive and that it could be cultivated through education and by following the
preferences of artists.
Aesthetics was named in the eighteenth century. Philosophers, including
Kritische Herder acknowledged the fact that critical viewing of artworks
produced philosophic and cultural information. With these areas distinguished,
the field of aesthetics formally emerged. The science of viewing art, aesthetics
was named by Alexander Baumgarten (1714-1762), a German philosopher who believed
in an artistic perception based upon “direct, intuitive and active knowing”. In
its relationship to art criticism aesthetics “became an intellectual and
linguistic system of inquiry based upon perception, thought, analysis,
interpretation, and symbols” (Cromer, 1990, 3).
The common man became the art critic during the eighteenth century. Public
exhibitions of art flourished. Winckelmann’s widely available “History of Art”
was the first art historical compilation to include analysis based on critical
schemes that drew aesthetic content directly from ancient works of art and
statements of ancient artists. It suggested a cultural freedom, that taste,
beauty and perfection were as readily available to the ordinary man as they were
to the elite members of society. Romanticism became the common man’s aesthetic
with spontaneous, feeling based interpretation and art criticism, a tool for
social change.
William Henry Wakenroder’s contribution to art criticism was support of
Romanticism over rule bound and expressionless Neo-Classicism. He felt that
spectators should interpret art without judging it, being humble in their
appreciation and tolerant of the views of others. As a mass audience emerged, a
redefinition of the roles of art doctrine, art history and art criticism
occurred. Artists experienced new freedom, losing their old audiences and
gaining new audiences. The art critic offered new resources to the artist and
spectator and interceded between the artist and the new audience providing new,
spontaneous and natural approaches to art.
During the nineteenth century philosophical idealism emerged from the
interaction of art doctrine, art history and art criticism. Critics,
archaeologists and connoisseurs concentrated on the artworks of the past,
turning to the expressive content of works of art for clues to the culture and
society of the time in which they were created. Early methods of systematic art
criticism provided ways to interpret the content of artwork for historical and
anthropological purposes. Philological criticism divided the subject of art into
production, doctrine, history and criticism. The systematic examination of
artworks used a variety of critical methods that were widely known and used by
enthusiastic spectators. Much information was gleaned from excavations that
fostered the reclaiming of mankind’s heritage. Empathy and intuition arose in
art criticism as Conrad Fiedler perpetuated the theory of pure visibility with
art as aesthetic object, directly focusing on the perceived expressive qualities
of artworks.
Early in the twentieth century, Heinrich Wolfflin realized that visual
expression lacked validity if not enriched with art doctrine and art history.
The interrelationship of art criticism with art history and art doctrine
suggested schemes of art criticism that served as the catalyst for modern of
art. Ultimately Stephen Pepper’s beliefs regarding the inseparable nature of
form and content led to what we know as modern art criticism.
Art Education and Art Criticism
What does all of this history of art criticism have to do with the art education
of today? As evidenced above, art criticism has always had at its heart the
desire to convey an understanding of artwork to the viewer. This translator role
naturally links art criticism to education. What better way to teach oneself
about works of art than to learn the methods of criticism and apply them to our
own and others’ work? While accomplishing the goal of understanding works of art
the student acquires and interacts with a knowledge base of infinite
proportions.
We see recurring themes in the art critical theories and knowledge of the past.
Discipline Based Art Education (DBAE) is based on some of those very
conventional and formal knowledge based premises. Its purpose is to organize and
integrate the vast amounts of information and knowledge that have accumulated
over centuries in the areas of art production, art history, aesthetics and art
criticism and to make this knowledge applicable to the daily lives of today’s
students.
One of the ways that relevance is established is through the practice of art
criticism. The area of art criticism reveals a wealth of opportunity for
integration of higher order thinking skills as suggested by Bloom’s taxonomy (Winebrenner,
1992). The formal criticism method held in highest esteem in the DBAE scheme
currently is Edmund Feldman’s four step sequential model: Description, Analysis,
Interpretation and Judgment. If we analyze this model against Bloom’s work we
must acknowledge a strong sequential relationship as one is guided from concrete
details to abstract concepts, from knowledge and comprehension to analysis to
evaluation. In the case of critiquing one’s own creation, the student exercises
an opportunity to reach the pinnacle in the application of higher order thinking
skills.
According to the North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts, “In all
four disciplines of DBAE, the practice of each discipline is based on the roles
of each discipline’s practitioner or expert. For art criticism the role model is
the art critic.” While the art student does not write in the manner of a
journalistic or scholarly art critic, he does according to Feldman, act as a
viewer who “confronts works of art and determines what they mean, whether they
are any good, and if so, why.” Certainly the directly applicable nature of art
criticism facilitates active engaged learning that becomes transferable to other
situations in a student’s life.
If writing about a work of art moves an art student closer to understanding and
experiencing its essence, the logical consequence will be an aesthetic
experience, as well. Continuity, cumulation, conservation, tension,
anticipation, unity, time, immediacy and expressiveness are hallmarks of an
aesthetic transformative experience according to Phillip Jackson’s John Dewey
and the Lesson’s of Art (1998). If a student interacts with a work of art in a
critical manner he/she will experience these transformative characteristics,
seeing the world through new eyes. John Dewey’s theories suggest that art
criticism can serve as a vehicle for facilitation of transformative experiences.
Since the 1950’s art educators have experimented with the art critical models
that appeared most amenable to educational adaptation. John Dewey’s influence on
art education earlier in the century is reflected in the theories behind these
models. These models are detailed in the National Art Education Association
History, Theory and Practice of Art Criticism in Art Education
(Cromer,1990). The models include the work of Walter Abell (purposes), Stolnitz
(classification schematization), Stephen C. Pepper (the world hypothesis),
Edmund Feldman (DBAE 4 step model), Eugene Kaelin (social and phenomenological
value model and bracketing), David Ecker ( “openness” for aesthetic
experiences), Harry S. Broudy (aesthetic scanning and enlightened cherishing),
Ralph A. Smith (furthering human values), Gene Mittler (Feldman’s 4 with
acquisition of art knowledge and 3 aesthetic theories embedded), Jerome Bruner,
Louis Lankford (interactive aesthetics with emphasis on affective aspects), Jim
Cromer (symbolization experience and innate skill in art linguistics and
aesthetic experience) and the ASMAC - Articulate Spectator Model of Art
Criticism (linguistic approach to closure criticism). Interestingly, each model
espouses ideals that articulate the needs identified in Feldman’s final four
steps used in the DBAE art criticism model.
Terry Barrett, in Lessons for Teaching Art Criticism (1994) gathered his
contemporaries to share their theories and practical models of art criticism for
use in art classrooms. The most important advice from Sandra Kay Mims was to be
prepared for a need for re-education of parents, colleagues and administrators
as well as students. The issue was acceptance of the change from studio based,
production only curriculums and products to a more balanced curriculum
containing integrated products that reflected art criticism, history and
aesthetics as well as studio production. Other models reflect theories that
range from Karen Hamblen’s cognitive questioning to Herb Perr’s collaborative
criticism to Tom Anderson’s cultural context and more innovative and engaging
strategic models.
Most recently art critical studies related to education have suggested venturing
away from the formalist approaches of Feldman and Broudy and exploring the
schemes of D.E.Fehr (historical context), T. Anderson (cultural context), B.B.
Venable (personal relevance) and G. Geahigan (critical inquiry). Models such as
Gadamer’s hermeneutics (Constantino, 2001) that focuses on personal context
suggest a resurgence of interest in resurrected art theory. The attraction is a
more relaxed critical relationship with the artwork.
DBAE Textbook Art Criticism
My school system, like many in the United States today practices Discipline
Based Art Education. The textbook that was adopted with our updated curriculum
this year is Art Talk. The text focuses on experiencing the four art
disciplines: history, production, aesthetics and criticism. Art Criticism is a
crucial component in the contents of this educational resource. One whole
chapter is devoted to the introduction of art criticism and aesthetic judgment.
Each chapter concludes with studio projects that incorporate art criticism as
the final component. Each chapter also concludes with a formal critique of a
famous applicable artwork so that students experience critiquing the work of
themselves and famous others. True to DBAE form, the model of criticism reflects
Feldman’s four steps as well as incorporating Mittler’s three aesthetic theory
models.
When critiquing any artwork, the student is asked to Describe, Analyze,
Interpret and Judge the work in that order. “What do I see?” Description
involves listing accurate observations of the literal qualities of the work and
requires familiarity with the elements of art. “How is the work organized?”
Analysis requires study of organizational qualities using the principles of art
that organize the elements of art. “What is the artist trying to communicate?”
Interpretation involves translating the expressive qualities reflected in the
mood, feelings and ideas generated by the work. “Is this a successful work of
art?” Judgment requires the viewer to determine artistic merit of the artwork
based upon information collected in previous steps. In the Art Talk application
it also requires the viewer to determine which of three aesthetic theories were
used to judge the work. Imitationalism focuses on literal qualities and
realistic representation. Formalism emphasizes design qualities. Emotionalsim
refers to expressive qualities, an emotional response from the viewer.
Beyond the Art Classroom
Why should students write in an art classroom? Why should the writing include
art criticism? As one observes the art criticism model presented above many
developing skills directly transferable to other academic and daily life
situations become apparent. We live in an increasingly visual world where visual
literacy is essential to daily success. Art criticism is writing about the
aesthetic experiences of the visual world. As students become engaged in
composing their responses to the four components of Feldman’s model they are
practicing the writing process, exemplifying the six traits of good writing and
becoming familiar with terms and writing prompts similar to those used on state
proficiency tests for example.
This year we were asked to assist students in practicing responding to prompts
using supporting details and examples, development of a strong lead and
conclusion and slower paced writing so that the reader can visualize what is
happening. All of these are addressed to some degree in art critical writing in
the descriptions, analysis, interpretation and judging of artwork. Analysis of
pieces of writing is another suggested preparation for the MEAP. Students are
evaluating writing using the 6 traits of good writing just as they would be
judging an artwork based on the factors in an art criticism model. A student
must take a position on a topic and support his/her view, another strategy that
is used in all steps of the art criticism models. The terminology and processes
that are embedded in art criticism techniques such as Feldman’s 4 step formal
criticism method prepare students for any critical writing assignment. This
writing across the curriculum fulfills requests from testing coordinators and
administrators for assistance in student preparation for the writing section of
the MEAP as well as assisting students in educating themselves about art.
If students use any of the art criticism models mentioned earlier they will be
developing higher order thinking skills and accessing cognitive domains that
will enrich learning and functioning inside and outside the classroom. Imagine
the possibilities for future success in any job if problem solving and decision
making skills are properly practiced and honed. Critical writing demands
proficiency in these areas.
Concluding Thoughts
A visual art critics’ purpose is to educate him/herself and others about works
of art. Writing in a visual art classroom is as essential to student growth as
studio production. Art criticism at the high school level encourages students to
get into the skin of the critic and experience the world through new eyes. Isn’t
that what art and learning are all about?
References
Barrett, Terry (1994, Summer). Critics on criticism. Journal of Aesthetic Education, Volume 28, Number 2. University of Illinois Press.
Barrett, Terry, editor (1994). Lessons for Teaching Art Criticism. ERIC, Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Burton, David (2004) Art criticism. Visual Art Education Association Newsletter. Retrieved 2/6/04 from http:// www.vaea.org.
Cartwright, Lisa and Sturken, Marita (2001). Practices of Looking. Oxford University Press.
Costantino, Tracie E.(2001). Philosophical heurmeneutics as a theoretical framework for understanding works of art. University of Illinois. Retrieved 2/29/2004 from http:// www. edtech.connect.msu.edu
Cromer, Jim (1990). Criticism - History, Theory and Practice of Art Criticism in Art Education. National Art Education Association
Dawtrey, Liz and Jackson, Toby and Masterton. Mary and Meecham, Pam, Editors (1996). Critical Studies and Modern Art. The Open University.
Edwards, Dorothy (1989). Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. G.P.Putnam’s Sons.
Jackson, Phillip K.(1998). John Dewey and the Lessons of Art. Yale University Press.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas (1999). An Introduction to Visual Culture. Routledge.
North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts (2004). Art Criticism. Retrieved 2/6/2004 from http://www.art.unt.edu.
Ragans, Rosalind (2000). Art Talk. Glenco/McGraw-Hill.
Sayre, Henry M.(2002). Writing About Art, Edition 4. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Watts, Michelle (2004). Practice of art criticism. Charles Stuart University. Retrieved 2/6/2004 from http:// hsc.csu.edu.au/visual_arts
Winebrenner, Susan (1992). Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom. Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.
Wyman, Marilyn (2003). Looking and Writing. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.