General notes:“crit class” = seminar comprised of critique. Asher may be revolutionary at holding critiques, but this isn’t unusual. Humorous to see phrases and words I use every day in quotation marks (i.e. “crit”, “being critted”, etc.)Snacks as a peace offering! This seems misidentified. I’ve always seen food as a way to say: “Thank for you taking your time to give me feedback,” or “Here is a bribe. Please come.”On, “Crits are not normally considered art world events.” I would say, maybe crits are not normally considered art market events. They are definitely events of institutional art making, and if institutional art making is considered part of the art world, then they are indeed an art world event. Unsure how I feel about dogs and knitting it crit. Really. I am accustomed to crit being a formal event. You don’t need to dress up, but you shouldn’t wear studio clothes. Speak up, listen, be respectful. Be on time. Don’t lay down (I try to not even sit in shorter critiques). Put away your cell phone. Generally, I like to ascribe to basic event etiquette, so this is different to me. Intentions- should they be discussed or not. I think discussing intentions is just as relevant as reading the work cold. I don’t see why either should be the only format as they are both useful. I enjoy the idea of a “non-negotiable core.” Possibly related to an innate aesthetic or the idea of an artistic inner wealth. Thornton includes many details that are irrelevant. For instance, that she had black beans and guacamole for lunch and that she notices women dispose of their trash before men. All of this seems like filler. Does she need to include it because she lacks real understanding of the dynamics in critiques and, therefore, sees these things as relevant to the reader? Or, is it simply because she needs filler to hide the fact that she doesn’t fully understand? Maybe it is neither and she simply has a self-informed writing style. Hosting a critique as a form of performance art.
So many diverse perspectives of critique, all with good points (some of which I find better than others). Dave Hickey saying "I don't care about an artists intentions. I care if the work looks like it might have some consequences." Versus Jones' perspective of the need for thick skin in a professional career and to see criticism as rhetoric rather than personal attack and the need to discover the non-negotiable core of your art practice.Criticality as model of art-making foregrounding research and analysis rather than instincts and intuition... this can generate a cyclical loop where, upon discovering the importance of intuition through analysis in the form of the deconstruction of analysis' theoretical basis that all things can be logically or linguistically understood, further analysis of this runs counter to the previous. Logic will always leave out the fact of its own existence as something beyond language, because this reality of logic is beyond logic's expression. Not to deny the importance of research and analysis, but "criticality" of art just may not be as worthy a goal as something more holistic, just as anthropologists are finding that objectivity is not necessarily a worthy concern to place in the center of their research.Chris Burden's perspective of alchemy to art, magic in the big black pot, academic suspicion. You cannot understand this, you can only choose whether or not to experience this.Talent given is not really yours. What you must take control of makes for good art.