Assignment



Assignment

Introduction

The concept of image generation, whether in two or three dimensions ignites the process of being subjected to criticisms. Critics appear on the scene to interpret and judge the visuality or tactility of such images formally or informally. They table the 'innocent' artist and read out his Offences' followed by their verdicts.

This paper notes that, many-a-time, these verdicts partner with personal emotions which tend to personify arguments along a variety of formats. It questions the rationale behind some art criticism canons which tend to mislead casual readers who may just glance through stopping short of excavating the underlay. These authors go ahead to implicate some of the renowned authors of books and contributors in journals. Streamlining the locus of art criticism is seen to be worthwhile at a six-point level, which ought to simplify and fine tune the art of art criticism.

Narrating a live-experience in an art judgment outing, the authors proved that art professionals, sometimes, are not left out in the no-so-good understanding of art criticism due to one reason or the other. Suggestions were put forward as to a dispassionate path to un personalized and art-restricted art criticism.

The Present Garment of Criticism

The detachment of the self from art criticism has proved to be a difficult swim upstream. Many reasons are responsible for this. Prejudices due to training or lack of it, is almost always implicated in the wrong attitude towards clear and impersonal judgment. As earlier mentioned in this paper "the conservative intervention of personal emotions" stands as an 'albatros' or a 'colossus' against a calm and dispassionate approach to the subject in question.

One of the writers of this paper is a ceramist by training and may digress generally here to properly present his case. He came into the 'field of play' (practice), to meet a 'red card' ordering ceramics/pottery out. The reason being that they are 'craft' not 'art'. This is more than art/ceramic criticism but the position strengthens the argument against the current criticism canons. The writers here suspect strongly that the undercurrent generated by this 'craft baptism' that gave rise to the term 'ceramic art' has been entrenched into the creative dictionary of art practice, or do I say 'craft practice'. After all, there is nothing like 'painting art' art or 'sculpture art'. Ceramics ought not to be criticized on this platform.

The proponents of this craft idea have not clearly established the immovable boundaries between this 'craft' (reproductive art) and one-of a-kind art. They have also not respected the unclear and fluid demarcation between utilitarian ceramics and its aestheticism (decorative ceramics). While some ceramics whose choice are based on beauty (art content) perform the function of utility, aesthetic ceramics also perform a function-the function of aesthetics. If the argument of function strips ceramics of the status of art, then the structures of that line of thought collapse in the face of the functional significance of painting and sculptures (which also perform decorative or aesthetic functions).

Authors and other informal writers have also disinherited ceramics in their ...