Late Lacy Response

In “Debated Territory: Toward A Critical Language For Public Art,” Suzanne Lacy wrote;

“With these questions comes a particular dilemma for new genre public art critics: Can, or how can, a materialized belief system be evaluated? Raven’s deliberate use of “good” underscores our vulnerability in matching our beliefs to the artist’s, comparing and holding as good any mutuality. One critic values contemplation and the other activity; One espouses leftist politics and the other right fundamentalism. In fact, while all art represents artists’ understandings of meaning, the often culturally interventionist intentions of some artists threaten the stance of “objectivity” by which criticism attempts to deify art.”

A difficult obstacle in any art, I think is a “professional critic,” explaining his or her own biases and opinions on a work. Classic examples of this obstacle could be Ellsworth Toohey (clip) in Ayn Rands, “The Fountainhead,” and Addison DeWitt (clip) in the 1950 film “All About Eve.” Both of these critics are paid by the mainstream to not provide a background, study or explanation of a piece of art, but post their own individual opinion on the piece in order to sway the publics observation of the piece. Both of the above examples were able to boost or ruin an artists work based on Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s idea that, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

In today’s world, I believe that the only honorable critic is Roger Ebert. Ebert provides context for each film the he reviews as well as explanations and backups for each of the observances that he writes, as opposed to many other critics cowering behind their “four-star,” system.

-Chase