Reviewing the Arts – Summer 07

11 responses so far ↓

• 1    John // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm

  The term “victim art” is used by Arlene Croce to describe art that is made by people who feel like they (in a socio-political kind of context) are disadvantaged and choose to make that the focus of their art. I think the key thing that distinguishes “victim art” from other identity-based art is that “victim art” expects not to be criticized due to its serious and personal topic. However, sometimes it is unclear whether Croce seems to think that addressing the issues of racism, homophobia, or misogyny at all constitutes “victimhood”. I can’t tell if I am totally appalled by this essay or not. I want to know more about her opinions, value systems, and political beliefs that are behind this essay. There are definitely certain things that were problematic that made me dislike this piece overall.

  To me, her presentation of this issue is completely ignorant to the history of violence, institutional discrimination, prejudicial social trends, and power relations in this country as it relates to peoples’ race, class, sexuality, gender, (etc etc etc). These aren’t just cliche terms to through around righteously, as she implies in this essay. They are serious issues that affect the realities of pretty much everyone.

  Like I said before, it seems likes she attempts to make a distinction between art that addresses such issues in a “cathartic” way (she uses the example of The Family Business by David and Ain Gordon) and art that does so in a “accusatory and violent” way (Still/Here… supposedly). Yet, her tone and language are exactly those things (accusatory and violent) in the way she dismisses real people who have lived through the realities of oppression as “dissed blacks, abused women, and disenfranchised homosexuals”. Is she really trying to argue that people in these groups haven’t been dissed, abused or disenfranchised at some point because the mere fact that they/we are nonwhite, female, or gay? If that’s not what she is saying, then it seems like she is either saying that its cliché and overdone to talk about these issues or that people shouldn’t rub it in her face that they’re “oppressed”. She also states how “victim art” MAKES people feel sorry/pity for the artist. No one is MADE to feel anything. “Feeling” just happens. Sometimes we can control feelings. But it is impossible for someone to FORCE you to feel a certain way if you really don’t. If she thinks that there is a better way to discuss these issues in art, then I think the first step is to get off of her “art reviewer” pedestal and create something herself that embodies her idea of what art should be.

  If “victim art” is art that glorifies the state of being an oppressed person, as she may be arguing, then I think we need to stray away from that glorification, but still address these issues in art. Maybe the terms “art of empowerment” or “empowering art” or “resistance art” would be better terms and/or ideas to explore.

• 2    Gabriel // Jun 5, 2007 at 11:59 am

  Arlene Croce chooses not to review “still here” because she claims to be sparing herself and her readers a bad time. To me even after reading this article twice the main point of Croce’s argument seems to be unclear and contradictive.; She claims that victim art is a “mass delusion” and is circumventive on discussing “still/here” by discussing the genre of its art. I’m not sure if victim art is the right term for this classification of this type of art, I agree with John on is point of instead of thinking of it as victim art, consider it to be empowering art– it has a more positive conotation about it.

  Although I have read this article twice I still have trouble really grasping it as far as discussing it. Croce’s article had alot of fluff in between her points which threw me off alittle, in perticular when she talked about philosophies of differant decadeds repeating over. Also the general tone of her arguement didn’t settle right with me, mabee because this is not a real review and the fact that the whole time Croce is discussing somthing that she has not seen and yaps about how she not going to discuss it. Although I like the part where she talks about Shumann’s insanity, I think her point in that section is that as artists we are all vulnerable to loosing it.

• 3    Laura // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  In Croce’s essay, she says that she has not seen Bill T. Jones’s “Still/Here” and doesn’t plan to review it. According to Croce, why will she not review the dance performance? What is your response?
  When I first started reading this article it made me a little mad. Croce seemed to contradict herself. How can you say that your not going to review a dance because it’s un-reviewable, then go on to write pages and pages about it. Then when I read on, her argument started to make sence. She called “Still/Here” a form of victim art. She called it this because the performance was about Aids. Many of the dancers and performers and even Bill Jones was a sufferer himself. Her point was that even though it wasn’t intentional, whom ever views or reviews this performance can’t help but feel bad for the actors and dancers. “I can’t review someone I feel sorry for or hopeless about” (croce).
  Reading on further I even began to agree with Croce. Say I was to go to this play and I didn’t like it and I had to review it. It’d be hard to be so honest and say you didn’t like it. I would get painted like the bad guy who discriminates against the gay community, etc. Or you woud feel so bad for the performers in the play that you would like it either way, because you felt like you owed it to them.
  Then I stopped myself and finally decided that Croce in my opinion is completely wrong about this whole thing. She’s is a reviewer, its her job to review performances that she goes to. So to say that she couldn’t review it because she can’t review people she feels bad for, well that doesn’t fit to me. She should be professional enough to go to “Still/Here” and take herself out of the fact that she knows the history of the writer and artists and review the play for what it is. To me the piece shouldn’t be about who is in it, it should be about the message and how the artists and the writers did. If you are a dancer and you wanted to be the best you could be, criticism in needed. You want to know how you did and what you can improve on, you would not want to be treated any differently just because you had and illness. So to me if Croce took her job more seriously she would owe it to the people involved in “Still/Here” because sick or not they are artists and they should have there performances critiqued because they are no different than any other artist. What Croce did to me is picking and choosing what plays she thinks she can write about, but isn’t part of being a writer challeging yourself so you can overcome your obstacle and become a better writer/reviewer. Hmm… a lot like a dancer who has an illness and runs into obstcles( not being reviewed) and then hopefully having a chance to be fairly critiqued and bettering themselves as an artist.

• 4    Michael // Jun 5, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  I believe that Croce does not want to review the play “Still/Here” because she does not want to criticize the disabled who are running the play. She feels that if she would do a cirtical analyzation she would be cirticized herself for “disscussing the undisscusable”. Other art reviewers may call her out for doing that because she would be criticizing people that have not had the same life as her. These people have had illnesses all their lives so it would be ill-advised to create a critical article about the play. I would feel the same way because I do not want to put my intellect at work against something so sad in this world.

  I feel very sorry for people that have had mental or physical illness because do not have the same chance at life that most people do. This kind of singles them out and replaces there judicial merit with a dolorous piece that will increase a person’s intuitive level of thinking about the subject and realize the true depth of the distress that illness brings. I believe in criticism but I have to digress when coming up with a synopsis of a review for this type of art. I believe it cannot be reviewed because of the opposing views that might be created by the same review. I also believe that rambling on and on about a tautology she created within writing the first paragraph, that it is “undisscussable”, should not be taken to the great lengths that Croce has taken it, or maybe not taken it. It is anyone’s guess.

• 5    Malia // Jun 5, 2007 at 4:56 pm

  I disagree with Croce’s article. As a trained professional, i don’t think she can decide to review something that she technically has not “reviewed”. She seems closed minded in the fact that she already has a negative approach to Jone’s “Still/Here” yet she has not even given it a chance. In her article she says a reviewer has 3 options… ” to see and review, to see and not review, or to not see.” she doesn’t even list reviewing without seeing, yet that is exactly what she is doing. Pain is powerful, and it does have the power to affect, however it is hard to discern the difference between the obligation of feeling bad, and what you actually feel without being obligated. it’s hard to not let emotions get in the way, however i believe that Croce has no right to review something without giving it a chance, and knowing the facts. She should be able to go in there with an objective mind, being able to control her emotions with an open mind. Now that i know that she has chosen not to see “Still/Here” it is hard for me to even listen to her point of view because i feel like it is discredited because she has no basis to accurately judge.
  I did not like this article, and found it a bit hard to understand and really get her points, but all in all, i believe Croce was contradicting her self throughout this article, and this article makes me think of the saying “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover” and that’s exactly what Croce is doing.

• 6    Collin // Jun 5, 2007 at 4:59 pm

  With “Victim Art” a certain level of sympathy is automatically expected and the viewer or reviewers comments will automatically be considered biased towards the cause or movement of the performance. However the concept of using this “victim art” to sell is nothing new. A good example would be the film “Philadelphia” that starred Tom Hanks as a man who was not only gay but also was living with AIDS. This film was considered to be very groundbreaking in the 90’s but was it because it had an excellent story or was the main focus on the part of a man who was gay, had AIDS, and was getting ridiculed for it.

  In classes at Columbia for cinematographers we are forced to openly criticize each others work because that truly is the only way you can get the 3rd party perspectgive which is required to grow as an artist. You yourself already have a biased opinion toward your work seeing as how you not only put into context what you wanted but also the work you put into it as well to form your masterpiece…..

• 7    Carolyn // Jun 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm

  Where to begin? Croce’s essay is not only contradictory, but is rather self endulging on Croce’s behalf, as she immediately poses the question, “Dying an art form?” She then answers it saying, “Why, yes I suppose dying can be art in a screwily (not a word according to dictionary.com, by the way) post-neo-dada sense. (Another tid bit of information, neo-dada is considered to be modern and using non traditional materials or technique.) And that’s just the first paragraph.

  Then I get pretty fired up when she begins making her own set of rules when reviewing or “not” reviewing Bill T. Jones’s “Still/Here,” in order to fearlessly, “spare [her]self and [her] readers a bad time.” She then goes on to write a pretty lengthy essay in contradiction to her “sparing us.”

  Indeed, she moves further along in her essay to coin a new term that she often uses, that being “victim art.” It was only a page ago when she said dying could, in fact, be seen as an art form. However, she uses victim art to reflect a certain righteousness that is absurd and can’t possibly be considered a true art form. Rather, it is a cheap shot at pulling the heartstrings of the audience and a cheap shot and provoking some kind of emotion. She says, “they dance and write about those values as if they were the legitimate concern of the choreographers.” Who is to say that they aren’t? Sick, illness, and death is something that has affected most everyone at some point in their lives. Not to mention, she hasn’t even seen it! She later speaks of AIDS and the fact that Jones, himself was HIV positive and she didn’t care to take part in Jones’s, “sanctary among the unwell.” So my question is, since when has art not been about an artists inspiration, whether it be life, love, or death?” It’s pretty apparent that Croche has no interest in taking part in any emotion other than what she deems fit. Kind of screwily, don’t you think?

• 8    Nicole // Jun 5, 2007 at 5:54 pm

  In the essay “Discussing the Undiscussable,” Arlene Croce attempts to manuever the character of Devil’s Advocate; in this context, the predatorial embodiment of the artistic antagonist. The word “character” here is an assertion of my skepticism regarding the personal sincerity of her argument. However, this essay is proceeded by Croce’s reputation as a competent intellectual and respected dance critic; sensationalist or radical she is not. I do not believe that this writer, in all her derisively witty and hyper- observant writing, is attempting an unprovoked attack on disadvantaged people, or the merit of their work. Alternatively, Croce is mightily and courageously offering up a criticism of the institutionalized pity party the art world has become. But more essentially, she is questioning the bitter roots of this phenomena. How has the government affected our understanding or appreciation of art? How does that trickle down to organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts? Does the public embrace victim art because of a psychological neurosis like overcompensation? Croce’s analysis of this “fortress of victim art” bears a weightier implication than she is perhaps aware of herself. She strikes a nerve shared by the greater public because she exhorts an absolutely disheartening view of the 21st century reality. Do we exist in an asylum of “correctness,” resultant from our fears and guilts endowed upon us by our ancestors?
  This article distinctly reminds me of a particular review by the french writer Anais Nin of the American novel Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller: “In a world grown paralyzed with introspection and constipated by delicate mental meals, this brutal exposure of the substantial body comes as a vitalizing current of blood. The violence and obscentity are left unadulterated, as manifestation of the mystery and pain which ever accompanies the act of creation.” I too “o’ pine” for the art of old; the Chopin and Keats, the art which has what Croce calls “the power of transcendance” with the “grandeur of individual spirit.” I promise I can handle it.

• 9    Kaaren // Jun 5, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  Arlene Croce uses the term “victim art” in her article “Discussing the Undicussable”.
  She explains that victim art is undiscussable because critics are “forced to feel sorry” for the subjects of the art form, and in turn, the artists “put…[themselves] beyond the reach criticism”. In my own life, I have experienced art that made me feel sorry for a particular subject. However, all art that addresses social problems like racism, disease, etc. is does not necessarily have this effect. Similarly, each individual viewer may have their own reaction to a piece of art. While “Still/Here” might make some viewers feel sorry for the victims of disease, it might also raise political issues about health care, bring back memories of a loved one, or inspire further artwork in other viewers. Croce makes sweeping generalizations about artists who hail from such groups as “dissed blacks, abused women, or disenfranchised homosexuals… performers, in short, who make out of victimhood victim art”. She leads her readers to believe that all artists from these groups make meaningless, shallow art. So what about movies like Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing”, which shows racism’s real, dramatic effects on black people, yet whose message is far from victimhood, but instead empowerment? Croce fails to supply any examples of so-called legitimate art made what she calls “victim” groups, and in doing so loses her credibility. And even if pieces like “Still/Here” are “victim art”, perhaps their purpose is that they become an avenue for the artist to express their own emotions, which can never be completely invaluable. In any case, maybe a bit more empathy and compassion for other’s situations is exactly what we need more of.

• 10    Cheryl // Jun 5, 2007 at 6:23 pm

  Discussing the Undiscussable seems an obtuse name for the article written by Arlene Croce. She fervently states at the beginning of the article that she refuses to see or review Jones’s piece “Still/Here”. She starts out by making rash judgments regarding the piece’s traveling medicine show as ‘intolerably voyeuristic” and is sparing herself and her readers a ‘bad time’. She then goes on for pages to not only criticize the type of art, the choreographer Jones, and the bureaucracy of the art world, to make an alarming shift to the historical promotion and criticism of dance as an art form. She then traverses into painting, disparages television, film and plays, and concludes with a statement that critics are expendable because people find art as beneficial and arcane at the same time, thus forming a new group of ‘victim artists’ unconcerned with whether the art they create is art at all. Her almost incoherent “review” was more of a rambling steeped in her disgust for the victim-hood of victim art.

  Jones’s piece was developed through workshops he conducted to connect with other people who were also afflicted with the HIV-virus to transform the audience’s lives offering a chance to see how people living with this disease dealt with their feelings and how they imagined death. His hope was to raise the consciousness of the public, create harmony in those who were afflicted, and make the public more sensitive. Croce seemed to have a problem with this as the subject of a performance because she said it was not her concern what his personal story was, that his representing it through art made the viewer pity the artist; just as artists had done after the cultural changes in the 60’s. Victim art became a political tool where artists were “using art” to express a view or social oppression. She saw it as an unwelcome repeat of history.

  I don’t agree with Croce’s method for reviewing or actually criticizing the artistic integrity of dance first of all, the choice of subject that Jones represented in his piece, or the way Croce found fault in every area of the art-world since the first “victim art” movement in the 60’s. I do agree with her that viewers should be drawn to or appreciate art because they find meaning, emotional connection, or some cathartic appeal from the art. I don’t think viewers or artists should call art noteworthy simply because they represent a cultural stigma or political view; however if those views are your emotional connection then that should not create a stigma as well. I know that after 9/11 artists created pieces that some viewed as victim art, which, again the artist wanted to convey the emotion of the event, make the public aware and empathetic to what others went through, and protect the sensitivity the victims needed from political groups and public appeal. I do not know if “victim art” is wrong, however I think that making a rash statement as saving readers the chance to experience a piece that you think is not worth your time.

• 11    Cheryl // Jun 6, 2007 at 6:53 pm

  Extra Credit Response Assignment #4

  Croce’s view on what she believes constitutes valuable art is hard to determine in this review. She touches on many issues and many view points throughout this non-review review confusing the reader and demonstrating that when review the arts, subjectivity is the bottom-line; even to those whose job it is to review art.
  If you consider some of the opinions we have discussed to date, Croce seems to agree and disagree with all of them at some point in this article. She states that good artists are still working today in reference to the play Family Business, but that is the only time she acknowledges any artist as producing something worthwhile. Croce comments that the words of the play seem to be taken from life, which gives them the aesthetic she finds valuable in artwork. As Croce’s opinions wane and frustrate the reader, there are similarities to other writers we’ve discussed. Plato’s views on truth and the ultimate ideal and art being dangerous because it evokes emotion in the viewer seems to follow Croce’s irreverence to the Jones piece. She makes a rash judgment about the subject matter classifying it as victim art, which solidifies her reasoning for not only not reviewing it, but not viewing it either. When you consider Tolstoy she follows suit with some of his ideas, however with a negative outlook. Tolstoy’s idea that the artist should infect the viewer, communicate to the viewer, and emotionally connect to the viewer with sincerity in the piece is exactly what Croce was afraid to face. Croce’s definition of “victim art” is un-accepting of allowing the artist to communicate because of the subject matter and the representation of the piece itself. She sees viewing such artwork as entering the realm of victim-hood, being forced into a specific emotional state by viewing the piece. That idea follows along with Bell, who believed that if the artists failed to evoke an emotional response in the viewer then the art/artist failed. Bell’s focus was on aesthetics and the emotional impact artwork represented. Croce seems to follow that ideal with her comments about artwork’s power of the human conscience; however she has relegated what types of art are allowable to enter the conscience. Bell and Croce do agree that politics has to voice in artwork and see it as unforgiving. The most interesting comparison is Croce to Winterson. Winterson was appalled at the idea that art was used as a commodity, a trophy, an investment. She believed that art could not change your life; however its power was in its individual vision. Art had the ability to allow the viewer to escape ‘real life’ for a moment while entering our consciousness to react. She saw art as potent, confrontational, and difficult. She believed it should challenge the viewer, at the same time celebrating the human spirit and persuading the viewer to explore new possibilities. Croce’s a polar opposite on some views, but similar with a different perspective. She seems to agree that individual vision is important, as long as it sends the ‘correct’ message. However, Croce did not believe in challenging the viewer or persuading the viewer, without considering that the outcome would deliver an entirely new thought. She, without giving it a chance, is stereotyping it as similar to the movement of the 60’s oppressive war movement. The ‘review’ Croce wrote seemed to almost a stream of consciousness excerpt where she began to pontificate on a few ideas without a conscious idea of the ramifications of her words. I have a hard time accepting such narrow-minded view-points from someone whose job it is to be open-minded.

Leave a Comment