The Power of Feedback: My Case for Critiquing At The Workplace.

In the world of art, critiquing plays a central role in framing the art and in facilitating meaningful discourse about the purpose and value of artistic expression. Simultaneously there is a group of artists and specialists who question the value and purpose of critical analysis and critiquing art. Some of them assert that art needs to be appreciated for its subjective qualities, without the bearing of art critics and their opinions.

The first person to develop an evaluation system of art criticism was Englishman Jonathan Richardson. In 1719 he wrote The Two Discourses: In An Essay on the Whole Art of Criticism as It Relates to Painting and An Argument in Behalf of the Science of a Connoisseur. A few decades later, Jeremy Bentham developed the utilitarian calculus, or hedonistic calculus, which established a system of values from 1 to 20 that anyone could learn to use. Bentham argued that criticism was merely a matter of ratings but as even his closest admirers have admitted, the calculus method cannot be used.

German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten is considered to have introduced the autonomous discipline of aesthetics in philosophy. In 1750 and 1758 Baumgarten published his most important work Aesthetica. In this, he articulates the difference between a moral and exclusively aesthetic understanding of art. His way of thinking can be regarded as the major difference between a traditional and a modern approach to art making and art criticism which lead him to recognise not just one but three different potential sources of beauty in a work of art:

1. Heuristic: “the harmony of the thoughts insofar as we abstract from their order and their signs,” or means of expression?
2. Methodology: “the harmony of the order in which we meditate upon the beautifully thought content”
3. Semiotics: “the harmony of the signs” or means of expression “among themselves and with the content and the order of the content”

Baumgarten’s planned project, the “heuristic,” “methodology,” and “semiotics” never came to fruition; unfortunately he did not live to complete even the first of the three parts.

In 1790 Critik der Urteilskraft (“Critique of Judgement'') by Immanuel Kant introduced the ideas of a disinterested judgement of taste, the purposiveness of artistic form, and the difference between the beautiful and sublime. These ideas remain influential to the present day, especially in the formalist criticism that would dominate the mid-20th century.

In the philosophical debate of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was a radical opposition between two schools: rationalism and empiricism. The former asserts that the foundation of our knowledge lies in our reason; the latter claims that our knowledge comes first from experience. When we look at today's discourse, there are three distinctly different schools of thought:

1. The first school is New Criticism by Wimsatt and Beardsley. They argued a science-based approach based on Intentional and Affective Fallacy. Critics have to assess art based on the work’s intrinsic qualities and interpret without the influence of external factors. For example, if you were to taste a delicious dessert, the chef’s intention won’t influence whether you like it or not. All that matters to you is that the dessert works. The artist's intent is only one of the many possible interpretations.
2. Literary theorists Knapp and Walter Benn are on the opposite side of the spectrum and rejected the Intentional Fallacy. They believed that the artist's intended meaning is the only valid interpretation. In other words, the only correct explanation is the narration of the artist. Imagine that you walk on a sandy beach. You see a beautiful poem carved in the sand. However, the poem would lose all its meaning when you discovered that the poem wasn’t a deliberate act but an odd natural coincidence.
3. American philosopher and art critic No?l Carroll suggests that both our subjective observations and the intent of the artist are relevant. Intention is just one piece of the larger puzzle. For example, if you were to write a script for a movie and the critics are unable to decode the general purpose of the movie we can consider the script as flawed. There is a fallacy in the narrative in as much as the viewer is unable to interpret the underlying intent of the movie. However, Carroll believes that despite the script’s flaw, other properties of the work such as its formal features can still be appreciated.

Beside these contemporary schools of thought, I believe that critiquing serves as a means of fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of art. By evaluating and interpreting the themes, techniques, and symbolism present in a work of art, critics are able to shed light on the deeper meaning and significance behind it. This not only enriches the viewer's experience of the artwork, but also provides valuable insight into the cultural and historical context in which it was created.

A well-balanced critique helps to establish a collective acceptance of excellence within the art world. By critiquing works of art, critics are able to identify the most significant and relevant works, setting a precedent for other artists to strive for. This not only benefits artists themselves but the wider art community too by fostering high-quality works that explore the boundaries of artistic expression.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that art critiquing has its flaws and it is often criticised for being overly subjective, elitist, or out of touch with the general public's tastes and preferences. Some claim that the very act of critiquing art can stifle creativity and discourage artists from taking risks or pursuing unconventional styles.

My point of view is that criticism is often misguided. Even as it is true that critiquing can be subjective and yet it does not diminish its value. At the end of the day, the subjective experience of viewing and interpreting art is what makes it such a powerful and universal form of expression. For those who argue that art critique is elitist, I would say that critiquing serves the world by providing a stage for different voices.

Critiquing is vital in forming the arts, deepening our understanding of the world around us, and finally I consider that well-formed critique does not diminish the value of art or what we do. By developing the capacity to receive criticism and develop critical analysis we become more attuned with our environment and learn to understand what others intend to express.