the critique

this intense day long critique at CalArts seems like it is a really great expierence and a night mare at the same time. while it must be really helpful to be able to have the time to really get into the work and go of into other tangents and be able to open up about a lot of different aspects about art and making art-- it also came across as a survival of the fittest for some of the students that were not showing there work. i guess i got a little turned off by that part of it, where it seemed as if they were there more to say that had been apart of one of these later down the road.
-- in response to what is an artist " It is no halfhearted thing. You are materializing- taking something from the inside and putting it out into the world so you can be relieved of it." leslie dick, pg51
--dave hickey and mary kelly had some good quotes:
"My one rule... is that I do not do group crits. They are social occasions that reinforce the norm. They impose a standardized discourse. They privilege unfinished, incompetent art."
"I don't care about the artists intentions. I care if the work looks like it might have some consequences."
dave hickey, pg54
 "Never go to the wall text. Never ask the artist. Learn to read the work." mary kelly, pg54-55
"...there are moments when the his crit might have turned into a group therapy session..." pg56 (aye.)
i can understand the idea of being against a critique, but maybe just in the sense of the artist sometimes having to spill their guts and have to be really justifying and overs peaking when the work can do it itself. i often believe that it can be best to keep the personal out of work to an extent (or maybe thats just in my own work) but there really is something to be said about learning to read a work and getting what you get from it.