Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Unedit my heart

"Are the (Janson & Janson-loving) Kids Alright? McMaster Art History Students Protest Closure of Program"

8 Comments -

1 – 8 of 8
Blogger Unknown said...

You're a working art critic, and your idea of Art History is something old, distant, and heavy? Now I'm startled...and unimpressed.

February 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Blogger Leah Sandals said...

Point taken, and welcome to the club. I question my suitability for this job on a near-daily basis.

February 6, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saelan, I think the two disciplines (art criticism and art history) are pretty different. -Sally McKay

February 8, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

Fair enough, but every art critic still needs some grounding in history, right? Not to be too trite, but everything happening now comes out of the past, and everything that happens in the present changes how we look at what came before.

Maybe I'm missing something, but when we talk about contemporary art, it seems to me that history and criticism are fairly inextricable.

No offense meant to Leah. I wouldn't come here if I didn't enjoy her writing.

February 9, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Blogger Leah Sandals said...

Hey guys,

I guess there's as many kinds of criticism as there is critics, for one. Each critic's writing reflects their own experiences with (a) art and (b) art history, in ways obvious in not.

More broadly, there are different categories of criticism -- more studious or academic or background-researched forms of criticism, and ones that are less so.

Basically, I'm well aware that I'm in the latter category, knowing about as much about art history as a health reporter might know about medicine. I guess I know what's appropriate to the market I write for (newspapers and more general-interest art magazines) but I don't know what's needed to write for the markets that I, well, don't write for (more specialized-interest art journals and magazines).

All this said, I'm open to improving my art historical knowledge. But I'm not going to pretend that it's my primary interest anytime soon. My primary interest is words, and how they work, and in the way words can connect with art for a general audience. I know it's not the only way to be a critic--thank god!!--but it's where I'm at.

Maybe I should have just had better art history teachers.... : )

February 9, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Blogger Nihili said...

I don't think you need to justify your practice, Leah. Art needs to discussed in the present tense and we need people who specialise in exactly that. Art history informs the present, but I don't think it "grounds" the present, or sets the conditions for how art can be discussed. That said, I also think it's pretty disturbing that McMaster is nixing their Art History department. I think the discipline needs to be examined. But I don't think it is expendable.

February 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Blogger Nihili said...

dang! We are having some household issues with our blogger accounts. Nihili is me. - Sally Mckay

February 11, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Blogger Leah Sandals said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Nihili/Sally!

I do understand how both points can be concerning:

(a) dismissing the value of the present

(b) dismissing the value of the past

All timescales are equal, yo! At least if you're not meditating.

February 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot