Introduction Part 1: A Few Questions and Answers First
Why Now?
I have been publishing art reviews and critiques for almost a year now. I thought that it would be a good time to share my thoughts and ideas on how to write about art and art interpretation in particular: I have gathered some experience.
I constantly make notes, even just in my head, on how to write about such and such painting or such and such artist. Lately I realized that the best way to organize these notes into a useful collection is by developing and writing a guide. Now is the best time because soon I will start forgetting. Reinventing them would be a waste of time — dedicating time to organizing them is much more useful.
*Please note that this guide is not about art critique — it is about interpretation, which is only one, though very important, aspect of critique. There are some good guides on the general discipline out there on the web, and you should check them out:
In a few words: “Before it’s too late.”
Why?
If somebody asked me why do I write art reviews my answer would be very simple: I love doing analysis. There is a deep satisfaction in breaking something down to its constituents and then bringing it all back together, but with a new understanding in mind.
Performing analysis makes me feel powerful, and it will make you feel the same way. You will also notice that mastering analysis in one field will help you in other, sometimes totally unexpected spheres. Though some label it as a separate element of critique, analysis, in general, remains the basis for the other elements of the discipline, and is closely linked to interpretation.
Most of my reviews include interpretation in one way or another. I think that this is the most fun and interesting part of writing about art: where you can really get creative and enjoy yourself, without formal restrictions. Because interpretation is inherently subjective, no one can judge your own, if it’s internally logical and generally sensible.
In a few words: “Because it’s fun.”
How?
This version of the Art & Critique Art Interpretation Guide was designed mainly as a textual resource. I am not excluding the option of adding examples, or linking directly to some paintings or even my own reviews as a way to exemplify what was written. For now I want to stay focused on the text.
However, I am actively seeking your suggestions and opinions. If you have any questions about a particular chapter, or need help with a specific painting — this is the place to ask. Just drop a line in the comments, suggest a painting with a well formulated question, and I would gladly answer. I may use these discussions for a more visual and interactive version of the guide in the future.
In a few words: “With a few words.”
When?
Starting from this post, once or twice a week. I cannot commit myself to a more frequent posting due to my tangible life obligations — I am sure you understand. However, to be entirely honest, I do wish to spread the guide for as long as possible, and for several reasons.
First, writing something different provides me with an outlet of a sort. Writing art reviews was very exciting at first — now it has become a routine — one that I enjoy very much, but a routine nevertheless. Writing this guide lets some fresh air into my head; it provides a needed variety.
Second, which is a continuation of the first reason, is that I simply enjoy writing this guide and I would like to prolong the enjoyment. Simple as that.
In a few words: “Not often enough but not as quite seldom.”
Where?
I have already mentioned that the guide is planned to be visible only via RSS. To reiterate the logic behind this restriction: I want to ensure readership and to separate the critical articles from the guide.
Stay tuned for a discussion on the Table of Contents, the Audience and more.
