Honestly, Judith Butler’s “What is a Critique? An Essay on Foucault’s Virtue” is very dense and a bit difficult to decipher. With that said, I will concentrate on one of the points in her essay that stood out to me the most and interpret it to the best of my ability. Butler mentions that Raymond Williams is concerned with "critique" being reduced down to “fault-findings”. From what I understand, Williams (and Foucault) desires “critique” to be more than empty handed assessments of the object or subject on display. Individuals who partake in critique should explore the practice and notion of critique so much that it should have it’s own language so to speak. Interestingly enough, Williams would prefer a specific response be used particularly for critique. After debating if I agree with this theory or not I came up with a semi-simple conclusion. There isn’t any black or white responses-it’s very much grey, at least for me. To explain further, the point of critique from my experience is to actively examine the object/subject on display. To slowly pick apart every physical detail and question why the work was constructed in a certain way. Subsequently, the conceptual aspect of that very same object/subject is picked and probed to multiple inquires of its meaning. Therefore the act and presence of critique should be held on a pedestal and be perceived as a well respected form of art. But on the other hand theses “fault-findings” or empty remarks (as I interpret them) is what gives critiques its initial boost. For example, Sam Weber’s (an illustrator) work often encompasses figures with muted tones of greys, blacks and blues with hints of deep reds or vibrant greens. While looking at his work questions such as why is the figure's eyes colored red or why is the back ground pitch black? Which in turn creates a domino affect about the meaning of color or the what emotion the image exudes. Continuos questions and observations essentially creates a critique. Are “fault-findings” really that deteriorating to critique as a whole? In my opinion I do not think so but I guess it is a very subjective matter. Also allowing critique to have its own language would exclude those who are not familiar with its practice. Which brings the topic of status and power. If those who are not able to regularly participate in critiques should their opinions not be taken in consideration? Does there experience and interaction with the object/subject not matter because their responses are not articulated in a specific way? These questions that I have do make me recall the discussion in Graduate seminar. This conversation could go on and on in a cycle of theories and opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment