there seems to be a lot of conversation and buzzing about artists, writers, audiences expectations and relationship to each other and to the work.   I think the function and role of the writer needs to be looked at and potentially redefined or at least clarified.  what are you writing for?

critique- using critical theories, relating the work to the past and present or in a specific econtext

reviewer – opinion giver, one that puts labels on the work, encourages people to see or not to see, say what is good and bad

arts advocate and liason- one that can look objectively as possible (or at least be aware when it is not objective) at the work and nurture the relationship between the artist, their work, and the audience that receives it.  one that clarifies, illuminates, poses questions, shares the gray area, and facilitates understanding, while affirming the experience and empowerment of the audience’s ability to know on some level what they are experiencing.

anything is fine but be frickin transparent and write from that perspective.  (well, i don’t like reviewers that write sloppily, think lazily, and are belligerent with peoples work… who cares what your opinion is?… or who cares about anyone’s opinion?…decide for yourself if you care and what is valuable to you)

what is success in a work? does the art live up to the intentions/expectations of the artist? was there clarity between the intention and execution?  or is it what you expect based other relationships you’ve made with art viewing?  what is the responsibility of the viewer?

Tags: empowerment, frickin, who