Unfavorable 'Chihuly' review sparks emotions
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/27/PKPP11P3II.DTL
The response to Kenneth Baker’s scathing San Francisco Chronicle review* of the Chihuly exhibit at the de Young was so charged that the journalist issued another article to defend his criticisms.
In today’s culture, people need not merely critics to tell them what art is, but also artists, curators, art historians, art dealers, collectors - and the viewers’ own education and sensibility. In the consensus as to the art status of a piece or a body of work, each such participant has something to contribute, and each type of contribution has to be valued differently. The critic owes his readers not reassurance or even judgment, but a point of view, and thus, an example of how a point of view forms. Hence, my practice of comparing one artist’s works with those made by others. Art is made of connections - connections available to any informed observer - not just of materials and good intentions.
*Says Baker of the response to his critique, “A few readers denigrated Chihuly as “the Thomas Kinkade of sculpture,” which even I consider too severe, though I also wish I’d thought of it first.”