The (E)valuation of Art

The first ‘problem’ here seems quite trivial: What are we doing when we engage with an artefact, and what should we call this: Critique? Analysis? Interpretation? Commentary? Engagement? Evaluation? Judgement? Is there any discernible difference between these terms? Are some disqualified because they can be used in other contexts? Take ‘interpretation’ for example: we can exclude this term because we tend to use it more in relation to performance, in that we talk about, say, David Tenant’s intepretatrion of Richard II, referring to how he portrays Richard…or Glenn Gould’s interpretation of Bach, again a reference to how he performs Bach’s work (as opposed to someone else – so interpretation necessarily includes comparison?).

‘Commentary’ is a term we associate with sport – we listen to the commentary on a particular game. When talking about an artefact, commentary, to me, suggests more of a descriptive quality, even if some type of comparison is involved. ‘Engagement’ is much the same, although the emphasis here is on a personal reaction to the artefact under discussion. Could we just use the term ‘discussion’? This seems rather too unspecialised in terms of those speaking – in that a ‘discussion’ seems less ‘serious’ in its aims than say, a critique.

‘Evaluation’ seems rather more useful, in that it indicates what we’re trying to do: I can ‘evaluate’ an artefact in terms of: its contribution to knowledge; to a particular debate; to a movement; to society. However, it also seems to carry certain implications on the part of those doing the ‘evaluating’ – the term suggests a certain degree of knowledge on their part, that they occupy a particular position. It also is rather suggest what we can call a “use value”.

‘Analysis’ and ‘Critique’ seem, to me to be the most apposite terms. Firstly, they include, on some level or other, the other terms considered here. Confronted by an artefact, we engage with it, offering a particular interpretation of said artefact leading to an evaluation from a particular point of view (or several) which then guides our commentary. ‘Analysis’ tends to suggests a particular point of view, and it’s a bit too ‘sciency’ for me to be honest.

Which leaves us with ‘Critique’ as the front runner, a term that includes everything I’ve mentioned so far, implies it is ‘serious’ in its intent and will involve ‘judgement’. This latter point is interesting, as ‘judgement’ is something that, on the whole, people nowadays tend to shy away from. ‘Judgement’ is a term that isn’t used readily, but which informs all aspects of both our engagement with artefacts, and our ordinary day-to-day lives. Judgement is something that we try to avoid, yet it informs all of our activities. A trivial example: I am wearing a black t-shirt because I judge the day warm enough to do so. I also judge black to be a better colour (yep, I know it isn’t a colour, but for the purposes of this example…) than, say, blue or green. What I’m getting at here is that we enter into judgements from the moment we wake up each day: I judge it’s time to get up, I judge what to wear, I judge what kind of mood I’m in. We make all of these without thinking about them.

When it comes to an artefact though, our judgements are considered and chosen. My critique of artefact X is based on a series of judgements that refer to specific perceptions provoked by the artefact. My critique is not an opinion. My critique is based on my sincere attempt to be analytical, to construct structured arguments that take this artefact as their starting point. If my critique offends you, or does not “fit in” with yours – takes a contrary position – I am not going to apologise, not going to say “Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinion”. My critique is mine, it is an extension of me; the result of a series of judgements, experiences and analyses that I have worked to develop, that I have constructed guided by certain principles. This critique also includes comparisons with other artefacts and, necessarily, an interpretation of the artefacts I refer to – ‘interpretation’ in this sense meaning ‘understanding’ or “attempt to construct the meaning of”.

My critique, as opposed to a simple ‘opinion’, evaluates the artefact as part of the dynamic world: how does it ‘fit’ into contemporary society; in the case of a historical artefact, what relation does it bear to contemporary society, and what can it tell us about our contemporary present; what kind of interaction exists between this artefact and others; what are the politics to be deduced from it; what political interpretation has it been given, or had foisted upon it; what does this artefact ‘say’ about society, about the “human condition”; what do the application of various critical theories allow us to deduce from the artefact.

Thus, my critique is part of what Ron and I have referred to earlier as “the artistic process” – what one can argue here is that the act of criticism becomes part of the artefact itself. The critique embeds itself in the ever-expanding milieu of the artefact. Whether this is ‘desirable’ is another question.

We can also look at this from another perspective, in that by critiquing the artefact, it becomes part of who we are (put another, more open, way, it becomes part of our becoming), becomes part of our selves – part of the flow of ever-expanding experiences that constitute a human person: it becomes part of the experiences that we have had, but none of these experiences remain static. For example, if I read a novel, X, I initially formulate a critique of that novel. However, as I have further experiences, the critique of that novel changes, is reformulated in the light of those experiences which comes after it. What I’m suggesting here is that it is impossible to say “This is what X means”, rather we should say “Tis is what X means at the present time“, therefore, acknowledging the perpetual flow of the artistic process. My critique of X when I am twenty years old will be very different to my critique when I am forty (yes, there may be points of similarity). An artefact does not remain as it was when first it was created because to be an artefact it requires an audience or a spectator. The spectator is a central part of the being of the artefact (in much the same way that a god, any god, is reliant on believers to exist – co-dependency).

We seem to have returned to Benjamin’s concept of the aura which I suppose, again, I’m arguing against (I think). The aura, to Benjamin, is a static thing, yet this would seem to suggest that an artefact cannot transcend the time of its creation (production?) which to me would suggest a built-in obsolescence. To put it colloquially, as times change, the artefact remains the same, trapped in its own times. Thus, the artefact, in this mindset, becomes part of the nostalgia industry, facilitating those who bemoan the loss of ‘proper’ sculpture or ‘proper’ music – complaints that reveal a fear of the contemporary present, harking back to an idealised past that never existed.

Art, it seems to me, never looks back. Its movement is always forward, motivated by the desire to go beyond what exists, to create something other than what exists, to cause us to see what exists as temporary, as a staging-post on a ‘journey – albeit a journey without a beginning, middle or an end.