In his latest post, he reacts quite eloquently to the dynamic of critic being criticized for expressing a controversial viewpoint. He wasn't the critic in question...it was the art critic for the SF Chronicle who got enough negative mail from readers regarding his remarks about Dale Chihuly's work that he felt a need to explain himself.
If the world were perfect, we wouldn't need a mediator to tell or explain or reveal. We would (if we were so inclined) devote enough attention to something to come to some kind of rationa
l and humble conclusion of our own about the worth of a piece of blown glass or a Santa Lucia Pinot Noir, for example. It would become obvious to us that only our own reaction to a piece of art or to a product is valid, that we cannot ever "know" what the artist or craftsman was trying to accomplish, but that his work was a gift given to us...and we are to say to it, either yes or no.We know that we could never have made that thing, and that the artist's conception of it is different than ours and only the artist's. Our conception is only truly meaningful to ourselves given that we all experience the world differently.
The hardest thing though, sometimes, is to acknowledge our own lack of experience with something and to be careful how loudly we trumpet our opinion. It isn't a perfect world, and wine critics serve a useful purpose for those who aren't yet ready to make their wine buying decisions completely on their own. It is important to remember, however, that the critic is paid to form an opinion; he does not speak for us...he speaks only for himself; and his opinion, in the end, can only be valid for him.
Posts
2 comments:
as long as a critic is consistent, and in wine has a consistent palate, how they describe something is far more important than how they rate it. Parker and Tanzer often have quite different ratins, but which one's palate matches your's and what you like in a wine? But then you have 'critics' like Wong. I have no clue what his palate is (Maybe "we have lots of this to sell" or "we have a huge markup on this"), and so I ignore him completely.
People often seem to forget that one must be critical to be a critic. If they love everything, or hate everything, then their opinion is really worthless.
TKremin:
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, as far as that goes, regarding the need for a critic to be critical...to take a stand. In the short term having an "educated" palate that one can compare his or her palate to can be helpful when making wine buying decisions. In the long term, the "critical" voice, no matter how opinionated or educated is sound and fury. Just another voice with a perspective...No different than anyone else.
--Steven Mirassou
Post a Comment