Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The critic, the artist and the ego

I love the Guardian extract, concerning critics and prizes, from Stephen Sondheim's forthcoming book, Look I Made a Hat. He's pretty much on about the artists's ego, which might seem self-centred,  but it's a serious point that artists and writers need buoyant egos to go on working. Here are the bits I really like:

On critics:
A good critic is someone who recognises and acknowledges the artist's intentions and the work's aspirations, and judges the work by them, not by what his own objectives would have been.
On prizes:
What sours my grapes is the principle of reducing artists to contestants. Competitive awards boost the egos of the winners (until they lose) and damage the egos of the losers (until they win), while feeding the egos of the voters (all the time). Just as there are people who claim to be immune to public criticism, so there are those who claim to be unaffected by being passed over for an award from their supposed peers. But, as in the case of the critic-immune, I've not met any who have convinced me. It isn't so much that you want to be deemed the best; it's more that you don't want to be deemed second best. No matter who the voters are, and whether you accept them as worthy of judging you, winning means they like you more than your competitors.
In conclusion:
...the only meaningful recognition is recognition by your peers or, more accurately, people you consider your peers, and peer recognition is a very personal matter. An artist's peers are other artists, not necessarily in the same field – ie, musicians for musicians, painters for painters – but people who understand what you're trying to do simply because they're trying to do a similar thing.
On the first point, I'd add that a favourable review that nevertheless entirely misses the point of your work can be almost as bad as an unfavourable review - or, well, pretty dismaying. On the second, I'd add that the pernicious thing about prizes is that the also-rans become second-best in the eyes of the public as well as the judges.
On the last, I'd heartily agree, as far as an artist's ego goes, but then we have the matter, don't we, of sales...?

12 comments:

Sue Guiney said...

Yep, yep and yep.

Tim Love said...

On Critics: Well, it would be silly to review an SF book for kids as if it were meant to be an adult love story. But McGonagall et al can (and do) say to their detractors that they just don't understand. If The Tay Bridge Disaster hadn't satisfied the poet's lofty intentions and aspirations, he'd have improved it. Should one accept the intentions and aspirations of Marilyn Zimmerman? Of Flarf? Rothko insisted that he was not an abstractionist. He said his interest was "only in expressing basic human emotions — tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on. … And if you … are moved only by their color relationship, then you miss the point." How many Art Critics have missed the point? If we're not prepared to toe the artist's line, must we be silent? Anyway, what does "the work's aspirations" mean other than the artist's aspirations?

On prizes: "What sours my grapes is the principle of reducing artists to contestants" - don't all editors/judges do that? Doesn't the same sort of thing happen in many walks of life? Even lovers get jilted. It depends how you choose to look at it.

In conclusion: "the only meaningful recognition is recognition by your peers". Well, you may be consoled by the comments at your local writers group, but if the editors keep rejecting you whilst accepting your fellow members …

Elizabeth Baines said...

Tim: I agree that critics are free to decide whether or not an artist has achieved his/her aspirations - indeed that's the critic's job. And indeed to question those aspirations in the first place. But it's also a critic's job to be aware of those aspirations, and the kind of blindness that I think is being referred to is the one I discussed recently on this blog, where for instance a critic views a work through an inappropriate class-consciousness.

Of course all editors judge, judging is part of the game, but the prize culture takes the whole thing to extreme level.

Quite agree on your last point.

Elizabeth Baines said...

PS Although I also agree that it's the work of the artist to make those aspirations clear, and if the work doesn't do that, then you can't blame the critic...

Dan Holloway said...

I think peer recognition comes not from praise or words, but from people who share your aspirations coming on your journey, and letting you share theirs. It's the hardest-won recognition of all (most artists - I guess understandably - want only to travel with those further on than they are) but it's our lifeblood, and that fact is something anyone setting out would do well to keep with them however far they get.

And I absolutely agree that it cuts across the art forms - I love working with musicians, photographers, artists - even the occasional poet. I think what most people I know would give their eye teeth for is to be lucky enough to be caught up in one of *those* moments, be it New York at the turn of the 70s or Bloomsbury in teh 20s. Being part of a larger artistic moment like that is worth more than any prize or review or, dare I say, sales

Elizabeth Baines said...

Yes, I'd agree that peer recognition is our lifeblood. That's the thing that makes me happiest - when I feel a connection with other artists/writers, and, on a cruder level, when those whose work I admire appreciate mine. Though I must say that if general readers or listeners like what I've written too that's really something! It's not so much the sales, although I put it in those terms above, it's the reaching out and making connections (the sales being representative of that).

Dan Holloway said...

"it's the reaching out and making connections"
yes, we're rather like neurons, aren't we? Without the connections we just shrivel and our work with it

Elizabeth Baines said...

Yes, which is why the critic's job is such a difficult and responsible one, with its duty to the greater artistic good and the power to trample on artists' self-confidence to the ultimate detriment to our art.

nmj said...

I agree with some of Sondheim's points but am conflicted as you don't have to come first or 'top of the class' to feel chuffed, and it is not 'degrading' either to lose. I found out recently that I got in top 100 Bridport 'shortlist' out of 6000 entries for their short story award - I'm not even a runner-up for a prize, but I am still v. pleased as the Bridport is a tough one to crack. I will be very pleased to see my name on their website at end of month. And it's still top 1.65% - I worked it out! ;)

Elizabeth Baines said...

Wow, congratulations, Nasim!

nmj said...

Thanks, Eliz, I am pleased, these small 'victories' are important for me, especially as am not robust enough at moment to be writing another book. Funnily, I dreamt last night I got a letter from Bridport to say there was a mistake and my poem (poem?!) was not shortlisted, followed by a list of very negative criticisms... I was relieved to wake up!

Elizabeth Baines said...

What a nightmare! But I think this perfectly illustrates the fragility of writer's egos - and the importance of nurturing them!