Instead of books, art, theatre, and music being consigned to specialized niches, we might have a criticism that better reflects the eclecticism of our time, a criticism that takes in various arts all at once.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What distinguishes modern art from the art of other ages is criticism.
Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.
I divide criticism into two categories - one coming from those who understand music, who are worthy of being critical because they are knowledgeable about what they are saying; and then there is another category of people who would criticise you anyway, whether your work is good or bad.
Criticism is part of the creative man's journey, and I appreciate it.
All good criticism should be judged the way art is. You shouldn't read it the way you read history or science.
Artists teach critics what to think. Critics repeat what the artists teach them.
Critics try to pin so many different inaccuracies on me and my music; they look at the complicated things and try to simplify them. They think they can nail your whole life down just by knowing the bare bones of your history in partaking in 10 minutes of conversation.
I don't listen to what art critics say. I don't know anybody who needs a critic to find out what art is.
A lot of people are intimated by art, but it's something to be revered beyond criticism.
The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.