Oscar Wilde said: "Revealing art and hiding the artist is the goal of art". And that complexity, which sounds simple in principle, is only achieved by a handful of true artists, who achieve such a dignified distinction, even if that means that most of those who say "artists" are actually a poor imitation of them reaching the poor category of sketches.
Although it is true that the glory achieved with an artistic manifestation will not always be repeated on subsequent occasions by its creator, more often than not a consecrated artist will reach impressive levels in each of his works - but it is not a rule.
The complexity of appreciating a work that seeks to be of art is veiled to a sector that weighs the aesthetic valuation through a high symbolic value, which becomes the privatization of the creative capital of those who created it, be it an artist or a curator.
In a way, as Javier Toscano says, a work of art is an appropriation that territorializes - under a cultural concept - an aesthetic expression, so it is also, then, the simultaneous insertion of a value and an inequality. But not only that, the artistic system, like the capitalist machine, monopolizes the possibilities and the production of high symbolic value, especially the expectations and desires, the projections and the promises of a utopian world, improbable, yes, but in that each individual was the possessor of their own dreams and searches.
It is in this aesthetic world governed by the Dadaists, the Constructivists, the Surrealists, the Classics, Expressionists, Contemporaries, by the incisive collages with recipes of assembly and a whole continuous and thriving flow of trans-aesthetic impulses - Baudrillard said -, and everything inherent to the realm of what is considered artistic, where the profession of the art critic establishes a system of exclusion and limited access, through the elaboration of personal and institutional protocols that correspond to the abject ideal of an isolated, valued, exalted, fetishized object for an exclusive and exclusive abstract consumption that dictate what is and what is not truly art.
The artistic ideal does not pretend to be equivalent to advertising, fashion or the Hollywood industry and design in all its aspects, although in the past museums had a rhythm of production of exhibitions that allowed to digest to some extent the artistic proposals, and in Today, the proliferation of galleries and independent spaces has generated a kind of fever of the artistic motivated, in large part, by the multiplication of art pseudo-critics that have reduced the transcendence, over time, of an object or artistic expression by the functional symmetry between a work of art and a financial algorithm, which the ruling classes manage to perfection.
In order to explore the artistic environment and to unravel the attractive utopia of art, the critic's task is to strip the framework of shadowy relations that populate an artistic creation, and thus to make an object or expression available to the public so that thousands clump around him.
It is possible that the lack of artistic rigor of the critic has allowed the creation vacuum, the occurrence, the lack of intelligence to be the values of a false art and the behavior of its actors in the very environment to which the intended artist seeks access.
It could be said that currently making art is an egomaniacal exercise, unless in reality the work speaks for the artist and not a curator, not a system, not a dogma.
A true critic of art is a personality that through implacable irony, and a reasonably critical eye, strips the true motivations of the actors of the artistic world, who with their criticism can generate a tingling in the depths of the soul that will be the spark that motivates the appreciation of this or that work.
Unfortunately, the very "essence" of what is understood as "art" can be reduced to a simple banal comment by an unscrupulous critic or professionalism, which more than objective could get to seek to give importance to technical entanglements, which weave very complex theories from the occurrence and the accident and that hinder or degrade the true work of an art critic without artistic biases.
In short, the profession of the art critic is not anything, it is not an invention, much less an office that can be dominated overnight.
The true art critic must have an artistic and conceptual formation about the multiple cultural disciplines of man, but he must also specialize and focus all his knowledge and appreciation to the privileged territory of the arts and his aesthetics.
To understand the world of art, we must know that, in it, images are accompanied by a feeling, do not appear alone, are always already a bet on stage between the object that is chosen, its environment and the observer. In other words, one does not observe or appreciate objects or scenes, but sign systems, approved fantasy universes where the artist is at the origin of the construction and conceptualization, and the art critic is an interpreter of the representation of a world subjective and iridescent.
TECNODEDSEC
@cervantes. No te olvides de votarles como witness en esta página: