about critique

[bee]

Sweet poets, as I was reading your concerns about critique – I wanted to give you a sample from renaissance times, there’s a bit for artists and poets to ponder about.

Now, there is what Giorgio Vasari writes in his book Lives of the Artists- volume1. There is an episode between Paolo Ucello and Donatello.
The story goes- that Ucello was once commissioned to paint over the door of the church on San Tomasso in the Old Market a fresco showing St Thomas feeling for a wound in Christ’s side, and that he put all he could into the work. saying that he wanted to display all his ability and knowledge. So he had a screen of planks put up round the painting to keep it hidden until it was ready. One day Donatello met him on his own and said: “And what kind of work is this that you’ve hidden behind a screen?”
Paolo answered: “You just have to wait and see.”
Donatello would not press him any further, expecting that he would see some miracle, as usual, when the time came. Then one morning Donatello happened to be buying some fruit in the Old Market when he saw that Ucello was uncovering his work. He greeted Paolo courteously, and Paolo, who was anxious to have his opinion, asked him what he thought of the painting. After he had closely scrutinized it, Donatello commented:
“Well now, Paolo, now that it ought to be covered up, you’re showing it to the whole world.”
Paolo was deeply offended by this, and finding that instead of the praise he had anticipated he was being censured for this, his last work, he felt so humiliated that he no longer had the heart to go of doors, and he shut himself up in his house and devoted all his time to perspective, which kept him poor and secluded till the day he died- 1475, he was buried in the church of Santo Spirito.

[Critic2]

Sweet poets, as I was reading your concerns about critique – I wanted to give you a sample from renaissance times, there’s a bit for artists and poets to ponder about.

Now, there is what Giorgio Vasary writes in his book Lives of the Artists- volume1. There is an episode between Paolo Ucello and Donatello.
The story goes- that Ucello was once commissioned to paint over the door of the church on San Tomasso in the Old Market a fresco showing St Thomas feeling for a wound in Christ’s side, and that he put all he could into the work. saying that he wanted to display all his ability and knowledge. So he had a screen of planks put up round the painting to keep it hidden until it was ready. One day Donatello met him on his own and said: “And what kind of work is this that you’ve hidden behind a screen?”
Paolo answered: “You just have to wait and see.”
Donatello would not press him any further, expecting that he would see some miracle, as usual, when the time came. Then one morning Donatello happened to be buying some fruit in the Old Market when he saw that Ucello was uncovering his work. He greeted Paolo courteously, and Paolo, who was anxious to have his opinion, asked him what he thought of the painting. After he had closely scrutinized it, Donatello commented:
“Well now, Paolo, now that it ought to be covered up, you’re showing it to the whole world.”
Paolo was deeply offended by this, and finding that instead of the praise he had anticipated he was being censured for this, his last work, he felt so humiliated that he no longer had the heart to go of doors, and he shut himself up in his house and devoted all his time to perspective, which kept him poor and secluded till the day he died- 1475, he was buried in the church of Santo Spirito.

so, all-in-all he took it well then.

at a poetry newsgroup I always remember the line from one poster to a wounded whingeing Hallmark type (someone had dared to point out the technical faults in his writing) "oh, so you came here for a quick hand-job, why didn't you say?".

those quickest to study crits. of their work are those quickest to improve.

[LaurieAK]

Bee~

Interesting (and sad).

There is a huge problem when someone attaches their ego to outside sources, letting those mirror back a gauge of internalized self-worth.

If you 'create' something you are confident enough to share with the public you need be willing to accept everything that comes with Publicity...otherwise it is about the Artist and not the Art in the first place.

At least that is how i see the moral to this story

L

[Critic2]

Bee~

Interesting (and sad).

There is a huge problem when someone attaches their ego to outside sources, letting those mirror back a gauge of internalized self-worth.

If you 'create' something you are confident enough to share with the public you need be willing to accept everything that comes with Publicity...otherwise it is about the Artist and not the Art in the first place.

At least that is how i see the moral to this story

L

what she says...

[bee]

If you 'create' something you are confident enough to share with the public you need be willing to accept everything that comes with Publicity...otherwise it is about the Artist and not the Art in the first place.

Dear Laurie, yes and no. it is a very complex matter. Artists/poets are very sensitive people at the first place, and of course-all the work is meant to go out in public. One cannot really discriminate between the art and artist, in many cases it is one and one, not always the sensitivity speaks about ego. Perhaps you have noticed, that the most confident artists are always the amateurs/dilatantes who think about them selves so highly, that every critique or even encouragement seems offensive to them. Same time, great number of highest geniuses were so doubtful, so critical at their own creations, that went as far as to destroy them, as it was with Michelangelo or Gogol and many others.
About Ucello- Donatello was a great genius, admired by Ucello, they were close friends. Of course, Donatello was just laughing at Paolo's holding himself much too serious, even Donatello himself admired Paolo very much. I really think, that as much we appreciate and value the critique from someone we trust and respect, same time, it hurts the most.
Vasari himself gives a bit critique on Ucello, as for Ucello being too laborious- Vasari says-For an artist's creative intelligence can truly express itself only when prompted by his intellect and when he is in a state of inspired rapture; it is then that he abundantly demonstrates his God-given powers and sublime ideas.

[~greg]

Giorgio Vasary writes ..

- please choose-
- one or the other-

1) -George Vasary-
-or-
2) -Giorgio Vasari-

(-not a criticism!
just a thing of mine.)

[bee]

- please choose-
- one or the other-

1) -George Vasary-
-or-
2) -Giorgio Vasari-

(-not a criticism!
just a thing of mine.)

Greg-my mistake- Giorgio Vasari-Giorgio Vasari's- Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects; or Lives of the Artists volume1;2;3;4 in English, I would not think to spell it as George, but misspelled Vasari.
Apologies
Benvenuto Cellini in his "My Life" refers to Vasari as Giorgetto or Girgiono- (little George)- Cellini hated Vasari.

[LaurieAK]

Dear Bee~I guess it all comes down to perspective. I think a dose of self-doubt is very healthy. It gives the artist a path to journey down towards self improvement and discovery; discovery of one's self and one's art. Art created is a pure result of refraction through use of intellect and inspiration from whatever you might think that source to be. I believe there IS an intangible mechanism at play and like this quote very much:

Vasari himself gives a bit critique on Ucello, as for Ucello being too laborious- Vasari says-For an artist's creative intelligence can truly express itself only when prompted by his intellect and when he is in a state of inspired rapture; it is then that he abundantly demonstrates his God-given powers and sublime ideas.

To be driven by self-doubt to continue to do 'better' even though there may never be a sense of satisfaction felt even by the greatest of geniuses is a price one chooses to pay. It is self-imposed under those circumstances. But to be paralyzed by the words of another, to be stopped cold from being creative ever again I think shows a mental problem outside the process of being a 'sensitive, artistic type.'

And yes, I realize I am just foaming at the mouth here, with only my personal thoughts to contribute...not any empirical data
I envy your knowledge of art, art history, etc which is skyscrapers above my head.

regards.
Laurie

[bee]

To be driven by self-doubt to continue to do 'better' even though there may never be a sense of satisfaction felt even by the greatest of geniuses is a price one chooses to pay. It is self-imposed under those circumstances. But to be paralyzed by the words of another, to be stopped cold from being creative ever again I think shows a mental problem outside the process of being a 'sensitive, artistic type.

Dear Laurie, it is quite interesting what you said about - mental problems, as we define today any strangeness, more, if someone is eccentric or melancholic. I think sensitive is more accepted. The expectations of today's world is that everyone should be extremely happy, and if they are not it is recognized almost as illness, mental problem. Of course, Vasari also was lamenting about Ucello's eccentricity and obsessiveness-to explore and to exhaust his talent on solving difficult, impossibly to solve problems. I am a bit on Ucello's side in that respect, that I also have a tendency to spend time and great pains for perhaps, unnecessary studies.
Also, there is a difference, if the criticisms has been directed to a poet/artist who does it for exploring his creativity, stretching the limits and being happy for what he has found, what a great meaning and happiness it gives. However, if critique has been directed towards an artist, who makes his living and his entire life depends on his professionalism, the critique would not so easily to be taken, even more so, if the critique is highly public, but made by a fool. It could paralyze, it could give a writes block, or painters shock. In turn, I think it was Titian, who would hide in his studio, behind something, just to hear how his friends or colleagues trash him, he greatly appreciated that, (not the trashing, but critique) and was paying attention to every word anybody said, but then again, he would never loose his confidence.
Don't talk about no skyscrapers, you write poetry, it is very high in my book.

[linda_lakeside]

I just want to interject a comment, if I may. Bee, I've always found you to be very knowledgeable, and having seen your work, talented as well.

Laurie, I know you some, and have read your work. Both of you seem to be on a similar trajectory. I envy this. I have high regard for those that put their work out there and, if 'they' like it or not, you still keep doing it.

That's what keeps the whole art movement going. Those that will write it, paint it, sing it even if they don't like it. You are both able to do this. As are many people in this forum. That takes a lot of guts, as far as I can see!! I think there's a big difference between sensitivity and what Bee termed as something like a 'melancholy', although they do have a similar feel. Maybe being sensitive, then being beaten up by the critics makes you melancholy thereby giving you more artistic ammunition? Determination?

That was my 'interjection'. You can all come back into the room now.

Linda.

[bee]

Dear Linda, thank you very much for your compliment, how sweet is sounds, but just it came to my mind-do you remember the "Godfather" movie, the scene where Michael announced to his brothers, that he has dropped out of college to join the army, he was to go to war? Sunny started to scream at him- "did you go to college to get stupid?"
My son and I very often are saying these lines to each other.

I think there's a big difference between sensitivity and what Bee termed as something like a 'melancholy', although they do have a similar feel. Maybe being sensitive, then being beaten up by the critics makes you melancholy thereby giving you more artistic ammunition? Determination?

Linda, that is a very important question, which exactly was the reason for this thread. I was reading some of the threads, were people were bitching at Critic2 about his harsh critique etc. I think, plenty of that was very unfair, still, there is a problem for creative people to deal with criticism and critique. Why cant we put some effort to explore it? Seems, that you, Linda, have been thinking about it, as I am sure, have many others.
It would be good to hear- what are the thoughts, principles, expectations in that very delicate area?

[Glory-Hog]

at a poetry newsgroup I always remember the line from one poster to a wounded whingeing Hallmark type (someone had dared to point out the technical faults in his writing) "oh, so you came here for a quick hand-job, why didn't you say?".

Now you've done it! You've given us away. Now everyone will know we are the wounded whingeing Hallmark type. What were you thinking? We've secretly known our poetry wasn't any good. Now you have exposed us to the world for what we really are. Hallmark Types. What are we going to do with you.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paula, I must share with you the occasion when I posted quite a decent poem to a "real" forum. I responded to a negative criticism, not defensively, but asserting my own view (which just happened to be more favourable than that of my reader!).

I was told "oh, so you came here for a hand-job. You should have made that clear when you first posted". This was a wonderful comment, I thought.

We simply must keep our stories straight!

[Critic2]

Linda, that is a very important question, which exactly was the reason for this thread. I was reading some of the threads, were people were bitching at Critic2 about his harsh critique etc. I think, plenty of that was very unfair, still, there is a problem for creative people to deal with criticism and critique. Why cant we put some effort to explore it?


It would be good to hear- what are the thoughts, principles, expectations in that very delicate area?

Bee, curious about which of 2 meanings you meant. plenty of the "harsh critique" was unfair, or plenty of the bitching?

Dealing with criticism of our creative work is a maturity test. But as I have mentioned before, in the immediate afterglow of actually completing a damn poem, we probably overate its value. Then we are tested by adverse comment about it. As time passes we realise the piece was never quite as good as we had originally thought.

[Critic2]

at a poetry newsgroup I always remember the line from one poster to a wounded whingeing Hallmark type (someone had dared to point out the technical faults in his writing) "oh, so you came here for a quick hand-job, why didn't you say?".

Now you've done it! You've given us away. Now everyone will know we are the wounded whingeing Hallmark type. What were you thinking? We've secretly known our poetry wasn't any good. Now you have exposed us to the world for what we really are. Hallmark Types. What are we going to do with you.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paula, I must share with you the occasion when I posted quite a decent poem to a "real" forum. I responded to a negative criticism, not defensively, but asserting my own view (which just happened to be more favourable than that of my reader!).

I was told "oh, so you came here for a hand-job. You should have made that clear when you first posted". This was a wonderful comment, I thought.

We simply must keep our stories straight!

no we certainly must not. At least twice a week in the Olde Days I used to pop round for tea with Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882). One time he famously observed (included in all decent dictionaries of quotations) that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

try to draw the meaning from the posts of others rather than scrape to score points. you may then seem less like the owner of a very little mind
indeed.

good luck for new and improved trolling.

[Snow (retired)]

Critic2 wrote:
>But as I have mentioned before, in the immediate afterglow of actually completing a damn poem, we probably overate its value. Then we are tested by adverse comment about it. As time passes we realise the piece was never quite as good as we had originally thought.


Or, as anyone familiar with Ginsberg might say:
". . . who scribbled all night rocking and rolling over lofty incantations which in the yellow morning were stanzas of gibberish"