A critic should be taught to criticise a work of art without making any reference to the personality of the author.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Artists teach critics what to think. Critics repeat what the artists teach them.
I never knew any painter worthy of the name who paid the smallest attention to what a critic says, even in conversation.
A critic is not a creative artist, is a commenter, a midwife of creativity, but not creative himself.
All good criticism should be judged the way art is. You shouldn't read it the way you read history or science.
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.
Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.
The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.
You do not become a critic until it has been completely established to your own satisfaction that you cannot be a poet.
The critic is genius at one remove; he is not unlike an actor on the stage, and incarnates in his mind, as the actor embodies in his person, another's work; only thus does he understand art, realize it, know it; and having arrived at this, his task is done.
I don't listen to what art critics say. I don't know anybody who needs a critic to find out what art is.