After reading a really interesting article about critics and 'verbatim theatre' that David Hare has pioneered, along side a radio Forum discussion about human evoloution and art, its universality and the ubiquitous landscape calenders (grassy meadows and blue vistas water present) research shows, collected across diverse cultures, sited as proof, of our common need for art in all its forms 'high' and 'low' . I particularly like the philosopher of art, ideas around, emotional engagement, pleasure , virtousity, skill, 'the hairs up on the back of the neck' moments that define our experience of art I was convinced even more that the winter of post modern art was slackeninge its grip on us. It is a drive, a faculty, even where there are culturally defined forms of doing soemthing, one piece of work varies widely from another.
Then there is the business of aesthethics, who decides sets them all out. It seems to me that critics should at the very least engage with some artists that interest them over time, rather than just cynically pander to readers, circulation figures , inflate their own egos and casually rubbish the hard earned efforts of said artists . Without at least having the knowledge , the experience of seeing or doing it themselves - where and how can 'critics and artists meet and dialogue, do we really need critics ? How do they add or subtract to our own experiences of a work ? I mean human progress clearly shows we most essentially need artists..so what for the future of art and critics how do engage with art without them. I have reviewed my own role as a 'critic' in the past, in order to write cogently about an artist's work there is a need for my total absorption intheir work , for me to even begin to try and express how you feel about a particular work - this can happen best sequentially and over time.