The purpose of professional art criticism?

Question

i'm reading the book "why art cannot be taught" and it talks about the process of getting professionally critiqued. i seem to not be getting "the bigger" picture. is the purpose of getting critiqued is to change your current artwork that is being looked at? or is it for future reference when making another piece? and why would you want your piece to please these people? wouldn't that mean you are not making art for yourself but art for the critics? and if so, why bother learning our own style, why not just learn what the critics like and recreate the same work over and over?

i would maybe be more understanding if the art that is being looked at is for a home decor, but when it comes to the art that can impact the world or has this hidden beautiful meaning that isn't meant to "just be a pretty picture" i don't feel that other peopleopinionsns matter in order to make that form.. because if theropinionsns did matter, then what would be the purpose of the artist? the critics would know it all and create all of the best in the eyes of everyone because no one else knows more than them.

hmm.. thoughts?

Answer 1

Art is a very individual thing.  Creativity comes from an individual's own interpretation which is then transferred onto canvas. I don't believe it  should be critiqued, which is to entertain someone elses point of view of what art should be interpreted as by others.  In other words, I agree with you.      

Answer 2

you change your art to improve not just impress, pick up new skills along the way,critics can help you make your own style better than it already is and also like it; if they like it so will other people not just yourself. the purpose of the artist is to create the impossible, the things normal people wouldnt be able to think of or aheive , that is why their opinions matter far more than your own because they are the people who is going to look up to the art, possilby buy it and hang it on their wall; you are not just making art for yourself but for the culture around you and be known as a great talented artist, the critics is the people who you see everyday; normal people: the community. if you was to recreate more work from the orginal people would get bored and your work will seem uneventful after a short legth of time the point is to do better not copy what you first thought of.  

Answer 3

I definitely have to agree with you here. I've recently started taking a larger interest in art, and one thing I've noticed is that not a single person I've come across is willing to make negative comments about professional art. It's a sort of an "unwritten rule" among artists of all sorts, because there really isn't any criteria for what makes "good" art. I mean I guess if you're going for realism and you can't tell a peanut from an elephant then you have a problem, but a professional artist would know not to call that realism.

On the other hand, it seems to me that most art critiquing these days is based on whether or not you have a message and furthermore if it is clear or not. I think that makes a little more sense. In my opinion, art is really about the passion, the expression, and if you aren't expressing anything, then it is as you put earlier, just a "pretty picture". But in all honesty I think critiquing should be solely for those who ask of it.