But here's the deal, it's about asserting an opinion. "As a reader, you may not agree with this opinion. But without it, you have nothing to respond to - no basis for a conversation, no position to weigh, no subject for debate." And if all you want is cheerleading, please talk to the PR people or just buy some advertising. "Art critics often champion artists and exhibitions, but not as part of some master plan to boost civic pride. They do it because that's what they believe, because that's the opinion they're asserting, and because that's their job." There's other aspects to being a critic, too. The goal should be to say when and why something is wrong, set a standard, reject mediocrity and liven the discourse. Someone has to choose. Someone needs to write about what they feel is important. Tranberg states,"You might not agree with me. But the goal of a critic is not to win friends. Nor is it to express the most popular opinion...my goal as a critic is to assert my views about art in hopes of contributing to a lively and meaningful discourse." Read the PD here: www.cleveland.com
In a loosely related piece, John Kappes, Fine Arts Editor of the PD, takes a jab at both CoolCleveland.com and the publication Dan Tranberg contributes to, Angle Magazine: "Right now, it seems our city is perpetually looking over its shoulder. If you read the letters in the latest issue of the art journal Angle, or peruse the e-mail newsletter Cool Cleveland, you'll see all this hand-wringing about local, local, local: There isn't enough criticism. No, we mean there's too much criticism. And besides, we're sure they'd like it in New York." Read the PD here: www.cleveland.com
Who's really whining here? What the critics are saying is: they don't take responsibility for the unintended consequences of their criticism and who they choose to focus on and write about. Fair enough, and that leaves a lot of room for the Angles, Urban Dialects and Cool Clevelands of this world. And this community. (:divend:)