/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4684350
no one. fine arts are not relevant anymore.

>>4684350
me

>>4684350
>art critics
AKA people who have zero skills and shit on other people's work because they're jealous

>>4684465
boo hoo le baby can't handle critiques

>>4684350
If the whole of /ic/ anons' consciousness was wrapped into a single superbeing, would they be a good art critic? That is the question I ask myself, friends.

Jerry Saltz, Nicolas Bourriaud, James Elkins, Benjamin Buchloh, Robert Storr, Rosalind Krauss, Roberta Smith, to name the big wigs.

>>4684460
Lol, define "relevant". Art's place in society hasn't changed substnatially for 150 years and before then it was even less relevant than it is now.

>>4684568
>Lol, define "relevant". Art's place in society hasn't changed substnatially for 150 years and before then it was even less relevant than it is now.

>>4684578
I'd love to know what thoughts are going on in your head to accompany the posting of that png file, anon.

>>4684589
>f-fuck, i have no couinterpoints!
>wait! i'll just copypaste with basedjack!
>haha gottem ebin owned

>>4684633
Not that anon, but you lost any ability of superiority by posting wojak

>>4684350
>parasitic money making """profession"""
>berg
What a surprise.

But in more serious note, there should be only one kind of critique: from artist to artist.

>>4685233
>there should be only one kind of critique:
>from artist to artist.
this fucking guy
>say something about artist work
>"ITS NOT LIKE YOU SAY PYW UR JUST JEALOUS STOP CRABBING THATS NOT CRITIQUE THEY EARN MORE MONEY THAN YOU CAN ONLY CRITIQUE IF YOUR BETTER THAN THEM AND YOUR WORK IS SHIT BECAUSE IM MAD AT YOU HOW EVEN DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MY WORK HAHA TOLD YOU UR JUS JELLY HAHA I SEE NO MISTAKE DONATE TO HIS PATREON NO IM NOT SAMEFAGGING"
Critics are a necessary evil because if there is no one to shit on you, you'll never get your head out of your ass.
Just look at this shithole of a board and what it has become by attacking everyone who "crabs" on anyone.
It's like those youtube celebrities who clearly lie and make mistake and label everyone who calls them out on it a "hater"

Also some people deserve to be professionally shit on.

>>4684589
None, people that post wojacks don't think.
Don't bother responding to them.

>>4684568
>Jerry Saltz
he is a fag

>>4685578
I agree but he's very influential.

>>4684471
But it's the truth.
I only care about critique if the person doing the critique has artistic skills.
Otherwise, his opinion has no value.

>>4684568
>Jerry Saltz, Nicolas Bourriaud, James Elkins, Benjamin Buchloh, Robert Storr, Rosalind Krauss, Roberta Smith, to name the big wigs.
What makes them influential?

>>4686179
Being jewish.

>>4684463
How did you do it?

>>4686179
What makes anyone influential? People pay attention to what they have to say. Their opinions affect to varying degrees who art galleries choose to exhibit, how much the works of different artists and different types of art sell for, the opinions other art critics, journalists and artists tend to have, etc. That would be in contrast to the many art critics who aren't influential, whose opinions consequently have little to no effect on the art world whatsoever.

>>4686985
So what is it about them that gets the galleries and collectors and journalists to listen to them?

Dave Hickey

>>4686985
You've described what it means to be influential, but didn't answer why these particular critics are influential.

Is it all about who you know, or do they have unique talents or insights, or what?

And thank!

>>4690442
>>4691852
Holy shit guys I'm not a cultural historian, I have no idea what particular causal chain of events led each individual one of them to become influential.

Hal Foster

>>4686789
kek